Skip to main content

Full text of "Oceans and coastal resources : a briefing book"

See other formats


93-876 ENR 



CRS ReDort for Con 






IN'H 



Oceans and Coastal 
Resources: A Briefing Book 



Oceans and Coastal Management Issues Team^^^^^^^ 
Congressional Research Service 



October 4, 1993 




CRS 



Congressional Research Service • The Library of Congress 



-■-, conducting re- 
f committees, 



:-en avaiiabie, wiinoui partisan ' ' 

ions, digests, and background t 
,i analyzing legislative proposals and issues, and in asse. 
:'oposals and their alteiTatives. The Service's senior spe. 

iiltations in their respective fieldt 



OCEANS AND COASTAL RESOURCES: A BRIEFING BOOK 
SUMMARY 



The United States and the international community have important 
interests in ocean and coastal resources involving such issues as pollution of the 
resource base, food from the sea, energy and mineral development, and marine 
transportation. Equally important, an understanding of oceanic processes and 
air-sea exchange is vital to scientific predictions of the timing and magnitude of 
projected global warming. A major concern is the impact increasing population, 
development, and other human activity will have on the oceans and coastal 
environment and what actions should be taken to better understand, define, and 
prevent unacceptable degradation. 

The Congressional Research Service prepared the Oceans and Coastal 
Resources Briefing Book for use by a wide congressional audience with interests 
in oceans and coastal resources issues. 

The briefing book contains short papers on selected oceans and coastal 
resource issues. Each paper contains an issue definition, background and 
analysis, status of the issue, questions, and references. 

The papers are arranged under major subject headings: 

Living Marine Resources, 

The Coastal Environment, 

Law of the Sea, 

Mineral and Energy Resources, and 

Antarctica. 

One appendix to this report contains the full text of Agenda 21, Chapter 17, 
of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) 
held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil in June 1992, outlining recommendations in 7 
program areas dealing with the protection and sustainable development of the 
marine and coastal environment and its resources. Other appendices include a 
copy of the Oceans and Coastal Resources section of the United States of 
America National Report prepared by the executive branch for UNCED; and a 
selected listing of oceans and coastal resources statutes. 

Because of the competing uses of oceans and coastal resources and the 
potential for increased degradation of the resource base. Congress and the public 
are likely to give increasing attention to these and other issues affecting these 
resources in the future. 



CONTRIBUTORS 



Alfred R. Greenwood, Coordinator 
David M. Bearden and Frances K. McAllister, Production 

Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division 

Geoffrey S. Becker 

Eugene H. Buck 

Malcolm M. Simmons 

Jeffrey A. Zinn 

Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division 

Marjorie Ann Browne 

Science Policy Research Division 

John Justus 
James E. Mielke 



CONTENTS 

Introduction 1 

Selected Ocean and Coastal Facts and Figures 5 

Selected Ocean and Coastal Data 7 

Living Marine Resources 

Ocean Research for Understanding Global Change 9 

(by John Justus) 
Whale Conservation 15 

(by Eugene H. Buck) 
Shrimp Fishery Concerns 19 

(by Eugene H. Buck) 
High-Seas Driftnets 22 

(by Eugene H. Buck) 
Minimizing or Using Fisheries Wastes 25 

(by Eugene H. Buck) 
Dolphin Protection Issues 27 

(by Eugene H. Buck) 
Marine Mammal - Fisheries Interactions 31 

(by Eugene H. Buck) 
Ocean Fisheries and the Magnuson Act: 

Implementation and Reauthorization Concerns 34 

(by Eugene H. Buck) 
Seafood Safety and Inspection 38 

(by Geoffrey S. Becker) 

The Coastal Environment 

Coastal Demographics and Development Patterns 42 

(by Jeffrey A. Zinn) 
Coastal Wetlands 45 

(by Jeffrey A. Zinn) 
Marine Sanctuaries Program 48 

(by Malcolm M. Simmons) 
Estuarine Research Reserve System 51 

(by Jeffrey A. Zinn) 
Coastal Barrier Protection 54 

(by Malcolm M. Simmons) 
Coastal Flooding, Erosion, and Sea Level Rise 58 

(by Jeffrey A. Zinn) 
Coastal Development and the National Flood Insurance Program 61 

(by Malcolm M. Simmons) 
Managing Coastal Areas 66 

(by Malcolm M. Simmons) 



Law of the Sea 

U.S. Nonparticipation in the Law of the Sea Preparatory Commission ... 71 

(by Marjorie Ann Browne) 
The United States and the 1982 Convention 74 

(by Marjorie Ann Browne) 

Mineral and Energy Resources 

Seabed Hard Minerals 77 

(by James E. Mielke) 
Marine Mining Within the U.S. EEZ 79 

(by James E. Mielke) 
OCS Leasing Moratoria 81 

(by Malcolm M. Simmons) 
OCS Coastal Impact Assistance 84 

(by Malcolm M. Simmons) 
OCS 5-Year Leasing Program 88 

(by Malcolm M. Simmons) 
Evaluation of OCS Environmental Risk 90 

(by Malcolm M. Simmons) 

Antarctica 

Antarctic Environmental Protection and Mineral Resources 93 

(by James E. Mielke) 
The Antarctic Treaty System and the Impact of United Nations Debates . . 96 

(by Marjorie Ann Browne) 

Appendices 

Appendix A: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. 
Agenda 21, Chapter 17. 

Appendix B: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. 
United States of America National Report, Oceans and Coastal 
Resources section. 

Appendix C: Selected Oceans and Coastal Resources Statutes. 



OCEANS AND COASTAL RESOURCES: A BRIEFING BOOK 
INTRODUCTION* 



More than two-thirds of the Earth is covered with water, with oceans and 
inland seas accounting for almost 140 million square miles. The United States 
and its insular areas, such as Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, 
Guam, have more than 13,000 miles of coastline, and the offshore U.S. Exclusive 
Economic Zone totals almost 3.4 million square miles. 

The United States and the international community have important 
interests in ocean and coastal resources involving such issues as pollution of the 
resource base, food from the sea, energy and mineral development, and marine 
transportation. Equally important, an understanding of oceanic processes and 
air-sea exchange is vital to scientific predictions of the timing and magnitude of 
projected global warming. A major concern is the impact increasing population, 
development, and other human activity will have on the oceans and coastal 
environment and what actions should be taken to better understand, define, and 
prevent unacceptable degradation. 

Population Impact 

In a joint statement on February 26, 1992, the U.S. National Academy of 
Sciences and Britain's Royal Society of London warned that actions are 
necessary to curb population growth and to modify human activities harming 
the environment to prevent "irreversible damage to the Earth's capacity to 
sustain life." The two academies further noted that "if current predictions of 
population growth prove accurate and patterns of human activity on the planet 
remain unchanged, science and technology may not be able to prevent 
irreversible degradation to the environment." 

According to the Population Reference Bureau, Inc., world population is 
projected to double from 5.4 billion in 1991 to over 10 billion by the middle of 
the next century. World population increased from one to two billion from 1800 
to 1930; but it took only 30 years to reach a population of three billion in 1960. 
Current population growth is estimated to increase by almost 100 million a year 
until the year 2020. In the United States, almost 50 percent of the population 
resides in coastal areas. From 1960 to 1990 the population of coastal areas 
increased from 80 to 110 million and is projected to reach 127 million by the 
year 2010. If these population trends continue, heavy demands will be placed 
on ocean and coastal resources, especially those resulting from population 



'Prepared by Alfred R. Greenwood, Senior Analyst in Natural Resources 
Policy, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-2 

growth near the coasts, the need for food from the sea to satisfy world protein 
requirements, and the production of energy and minerals from offshore deposits. 

Threats to Ocean and Coastal Resources 

Increasing evidence has been found of deterioration in ocean resources 
resulting from: sewage, chemical, and garbage disposal; runoff from agricultural 
and forested lands; exploitation of fishery resources; development of energy and 
mineral resources; and coastal infrastructure development. 

In recent years, the United States has experienced a degradation of coastal 
water quality, a loss of wetlands, closure of beach and recreational areas, and 
pollution of fishery and shellfish resources that diminish the resource base, 
contaminate seafood, and endanger human health. It has been estimated that 
70 percent of U.S. commercial and recreational fish and shellfish depend on 
estuaries and the coastal environment which is important to their life cycles. 
Toxic chemicals and sewage dumped into the Nation's coastal waters have 
contaminated harbors and waterways. A major source of pollution can be 
attributed to some 20,000 combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sewers that 
combine storm water and sanitary flows, which empty directly into rivers and 
coastal waters. Heavy rains and flooding in California in 1992 resulted in severe 
CSO overflows which forced the closing of 70 miles of beach along the coast 
adjacent to Los Angeles. 

Increasing population concentration in coastal areas can be expected to 
result in even more intensive demands and impacts on ocean and coastal 
resources. Significant economic activity and growth has also occurred as coastal 
residential, commercial, and recreational development has accelerated in recent 
decades. For example, approximately 50 percent of annual U.S. residential 
construction during the previous two decades occurred in coastal areas. During 
the 1980's alone, 6.7 million housing units were constructed in coastal areas 
with Florida and California accounting for 45 percent of this growth. 

Population growth and the attendant development of residential, industrial, 
commercial, and recreational facilities are likely to continue into the future and 
to continue to stress coastal ecosystems which are among the most productive 
on Earth. At the same time, this increasing concentration of development along 
the Nation's coasts poses a threat to life and property from major storms. For 
example, Hurricane Andrew, the most devastating natural disaster ever to strike 
the United States, roared across southern Florida and into the low lying coastal 
areas of Louisiana in August 1992, affecting the lives of more than 275,000 
residents of these two States. Estimates of the enormous damage caused by the 
storm range from $25 to $30 billion. Hurricane Hugo, the 1989 storm that 
struck the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and came ashore at Charleston, 
South Carolina, caused damage estimated at $6 billion requiring approximately 
$2.8 billion of Federal disaster assistance and insurance payments of $400 
million from the National Flood Insurance Program. If some scientists' 
predictions of global warming prove accurate, the attendant sea level rise 
severely would threaten many coastal communities. These predictions are likely 



CRS-3 

to stimulate significant debate at the local, State, and Federal level concerning 
the future development policies of the coastal zone. 

Petroleum and Mineral Developments 

Against this background, there is renewed interest in the leasing and 
development of U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas resources. At 
the same time, unless domestic energy production increases enough to keep up 
with energy demand,- oil tanker traffic bringing foreign crude oil to the United 
States will continue to increase as will the potential for oil spills. In each case, 
the public is concerned with possible adverse environmental consequences. 

While not a signatory to the United Nation's Convention on Law of the 
Sea, the United States has taken steps to align itself with some of its provisions 
by establishing a U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extending 200 miles from 
the Nation's coasts and also extending the U.S. territorial sea from 3 to 12 
miles. Under authority provided in the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources 
Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-283), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA) has issued exploration licenses to U.S. firms, although no commercial 
recovery has yet occurred. In this regard, legislation enacted in the 101st 
Congress (P.L.101-178) authorizes NOAA to develop regulations and 
environmental safeguards for ocean mining. 

Many nations, including the United States, have been interested in 
Antarctica as a potential source of petroleum and other mineral resources. 
There has been disagreement about whether even regulated development should 
be permitted on this environmentally sensitive continent. The Protocol on 
Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty would place a ban on the 
development of mineral resources in Antarctica and would preserve its 
environmental quality. Twenty-six consultative parties to the treaty currently 
are acting to ratify this measure. Thus far, Ecuador, France and Spain have 
taken such action. 

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 

Many of the issues discussed in this briefing book on Oceans and Coastal 
Resources have been addressed in the United States of America National Report 
published in preparation for the United Nations' Conference on Environment 
and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in June 1992. The 
report concludes that the roles of economic development and environmental 
protection are inseparable and while much has been done to protect the 
environment, new environmental management strategies are needed. See 
Appendix B for the full text of the oceans and coastal resources section of the 
U.S. report. 

At the conclusion of the UNCED on June 14, 1992, the Plenary session 
adopted Agenda 21, Chapter 17. Chapter 17 includes the protection of the 
oceans, all kinds of seas (including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas), and coastal 
areas and includes the protection, rational use, and development of their living 
resources. The session concluded that new approaches to marine and coastal 



CRS-4 

areas management and development at the national, subregional, regional, and 
global levels would be necessary over the next decade. Seven program areas 
were identified for international protection and sustainable development: 

integrated management and sustainable development of coastal areas, 
including exclusive economic zones; 

marine environmental protection; 

sustainable use and conservation of marine living resources of the high 
seas; 

sustainable use and conservation of marine living resources under 
national jurisdiction; 

critical uncertainties for the management of the marine environment 
and climate change; 

international and regional cooperation and coordination; and 

sustainable development of small islands. 

Conference objectives were established for each program area. The conference 
secretariat made financing and cost estimates for 1993-2000. See Appendix A 
for the text of Agenda 21, Chapter 17, which is to be published by the United 
Nations this fall for use by the U.N. General Assembly. 

Because of the competing uses of oceans and coastal resources and the 
potential for increased degradation of the resource base, Congress and the public 
are likely to give increasing attention to these and other issues affecting these 
resources in the future. 



CRS-5 

SELECTED OCEAN AND COASTAL 
FACTS AND FIGURES 



• Oceans and marginal seas account for nearly 71 percent of the 
Earth's surface. 

• Almost 98 percent of the Earth's water is included in the oceans and 
sea ice. It is estimated that the oceans' current characteristics (i.e. 
salinity, density, etc) were formed more than 1.5 billion years ago. 

• The average depth of the global ocean is more than 3,657 meters 
(12,000 feet). 

• No sunlight penetrates below 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) of ocean depth. 

• World weather and long term climate change are strongly linked 
to ocean behavior. 

• The ocean is an immense reservoir of heat. To a depth of 2.5 
meters (8 feet), the surface waters of the ocean hold as much heat as 
the entire atmosphere. 

• Continental shelves account for approximately 8 percent of the 
entire oceanic area. 

• Most of the major fisheries are located on the continental margins. 

• The United Nations Food and Agriculture organization reported that 

1989 world commercial fishery landings were a record 99.5 million 
metric tons. 

• The U.S. commercial fishery catch totalled 4.4 million metric tons in 

1990 and was valued at approximately $3.6 billion. At the same time, 
the U.S. imported $5.2 billion of fishery products. 

• 56 percent of the U.S. fishery catch came from Alaskan waters. 

• U.S. seafood consumption totalled approximately 15.5 pounds per 
person in 1990. Consumer expenditures totalled $26.7 billion in 1990 
($18.3 billion in food service establishments and $8.2 billion at retail). 

• U.S. Aquaculture production (catfish, trout, salmon, oysters, striped 
bass, etc.) totalled approximately $700 million in 1988 and has been 
growing at an annual rate of 20 percent a year since 1980. 

• In the United States almost 50 percent of the population resides in 
coastal areas. 

• From 1960-1990, the population in U.S. coastal areas increased from 
80 to 110 million and is projected to reach 127 million by the year 
2010. 



CRS-6 

Almost 27.4 million acres of wetlands are in the Nation's coastal 
areas accounting for 16 percent of coastal land areas. 

Coastal wetlands account for almost one-third of the Nation's total 
wetlands. 

Wetlands associated with estuaries provide food and habitat critical to 
70 percent of U.S. marine commercial and sport fisheries. 

Approximately 50 percent of all coastal wetlands in the lower 48 States 
have been destroyed, averaging 40,000 acres of net loss per year. 

Billions of metric tons of silt, sewage, industrial waste, and chemical 
residues are discharged into the world's oceans. Rivers alone pour an 
estimated 9.3 billion metric tons of silt and other wastes into coastal 
waters each year. 

The major U.S. sources of ocean pollutants in 1986 included 
industrial (11 percent), municipal (56 percent) and nonpoint or runoff 
(34 percent). 

Marine pollutants include sewage (treated and untreated), marine 
litter, petroleum, synthetic organic compounds, metals, radioactive 
materials, etc. 

From the mid 1950s to the early 1980s world offshore oil and gas 
production went from negligible to approximately 14 million barrels 
per day (25 percent of world production). 

U.S. Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production currently supplies 
10 percent of the U.S. oil production and 25 percent of U.S. natural 
gas production. 

From 1970-1991, royalty payments from U.S. OCS oil and gas 
production to the U.S. Government totalled $88.9 billion. 

Worldwide, sand and gravel are mined from numerous offshore 
locations for construction uses and beach replenishment. Millions of 
tons of sand are dredged annually off the U.S. coast for beach 
replenishment. 

Mineral deposits, such as manganese nodules, have been discovered 
in large concentrations in the north and south Pacific. Tracer 
deposits, which include chromite, platinum, titanium, and gold, can be 
found on the ocean floor within the U.S. EEZ, although no deep sea 
mineral mining currently is being undertaken within the EEZ. 



CRS-7 



SELECTED U.S. OCEAN AND COASTAL DATA 



COASTAL LAND AND WATER AREA 

Ebcclusivc Economic Zone (EEZ) area: 
Total EEZ: 3.36 million square nautical miles 

Estuarine Drainage Area: 

261,003 square miles (676,000 square kilometers) 

Coastal Wetlands: 

32,432 square miles (84,000 square kilometers), approximately 12 jjercent of total estuarine drainage area 

Coastline Exclusive Economic Zone 

(statute miles) (square nautical miles) 

Conterminoiis only: 4,993 

Atlantic 2,069 253,800 

Gulf 1,631 186,200 

Pacific' 1,293 236,800 

Alaska (total) 6,640 950,000 

Hawaii 750 695,000 

Extra-territorial 

Carribbean** 441 58,400 

Pacific"* 335 981,000 

Total 13,056 3,362,600 

Excluding Hawaii, Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, and other U.S. insular areas. 

Including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Including only American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

FISHERIES DATA 

Commercial: 

• U.S. fisheries accounted for six percent of total world commercial fishery landings in 1989. 

• 5.506 million tons (4.995 million metric tons) valued at $3.89 biUion were landed by U.S. commercial 
fishermen in 1990. 

• 92,900 craft were used in commercial fishing activities in 1988. 

• Approximately 274,000 men and women were engaged in commercial fishing full-time in 1988. An additional 
90,000 persons were employed by 4,600 processors and wholesalers of fishery products. 

Recreational marine fisheries: (data from Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts only) 

• Approximately 17 million U.S. marine recreational fishermen made 39.8 million fishing trips. 

• Approximately 231 million fish roughly 157,300 tons (143 million kilograms) were caught. 

• 86 percent of these fishing trips occurred within 10 rmles (16 kilometers) of shore. 

Source: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. United States of America National Report, 
Oceans and Coastal Resources Section. 1992. pp. 250-251. 



CRS-8 
SELECTED U.S. OCEAN AND COASTAL DATA (continued) 



NON-LIVING RESOURCES 

Offshore Oil and Gas Production 

1.65 million square nautical miles of Outer Continental Shelf (CCS). 

• In 1989, 50,952 square miles were under lease. Of that, 12,198 square miles were under exploration, 
development, orproduction for oil and gas. 

• 8.5 billion barrels of oil and condensate were produced from Federal waters in the CCS between 1954 and 
1989. 

• 86.87 trillion cubic feet (2.46 triUion cubic meters) of natural gas were produced from Federal waters in the 
DCS between 1954 and 1989. 



Year 


Crude OU 

(billion barrels) 




Natural Gas 

(billion cubic feet) 


1954 
1972 
1989 


3.302 
411.856 
305.169 




60.04 
3000.01 
4200.01 




Oil Spills Investigated by the U.S. Coast Guard in 1982, 1986, 


and 1989 


Year 


Vessels" 

(barrels) 


Non-vessels 

(barrels) 


Total 

(barrels) 


1982 
1986 
1989 


90,466 

80,943 

"*323,774 


157,126 
30,952 
14,284 


247,592 
111,896 
338,058 



This is the Federal portion of the United States EEZ plvis Continental Shelf Extensions by the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act. 

Includes tankships, tank barges and other vessels. 

On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez spilled 257,115 barrels of crude oil into Alaska's Prince WiUiam Sound. 

Source: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. United States of America National Report, 
Oceans and Coastal Resources Section. 1992. pp. 250-251. 



CRS-9 Living Marine Resoxirces 

OCEAN RESEARCH FOR UNDERSTANDING GLOBAL CHANGE* 

Issue Definition 

The decade of the 1980s was one of significant oceanic discoveries and a 
new recognition of the importance of the world ocean in global environmental 
change. In fact, the last half of the decade was noteworthy in that a number of 
national and international programs and planning efforts were begun for new, 
cooperative, global studies that hold the promise of answering major questions 
about the world ocean and its role as a vital component of the Earth system. 
But will these new programs ~ some planned, some underway — actually take 
place as proposed? 

Background and Analysis 

A more fundamental understanding of the structure and functioning of the 
Earth's natural systems and the forces that interconnect or change them is now 
widely regarded as essential to protecting global habitability. Recently, for 
example, a perceived need has emerged to study the climate system of the Earth, 
largely because of scientific findings that project future depletion of Earth's 
protective ozone layer or a possible warming of Earth's climate. A better 
understanding of the possible ramifications of such projections for human health 
and welfare and for the land and aquatic biospheres has led to an international 
consensus among scientists, who propose that the Earth's natural systems are 
best studied as one interacting whole. In such an "Earth systems science" 
approach, the biosphere is studied together with the atmosphere, the world 
ocean, the land surface, the polar regions, and the Sun. This approach, 
scientists explain, gives them the best chance of describing and understanding 
the interactive physical, chemical, and biological processes that regulate the total 
Earth system, the unique environment it provides for life, the changes occurring 
in this system, and the manner in which these changes are influenced by human 
actions. 

Nowhere has the value of such an approach been more evident than in the 
conjugate study of atmosphere and ocean. The ocean has a profound influence 
on climate change, both because of its huge capacity to store heat and because 
it can moderate concentrations of atmospheric constituents believed to control 
average global temperatures. 

World weather and long-term climatic change are strongly linked to oceanic 
behavior. Heat released by the ocean in a region remote from where it was 
absorbed interacts with the overlying atmosphere, moderating daily and seasonal 
cycles of temperature on the Earth's surface and helping to shape regional 
weather and climate. Furthermore, the scientific debate over excess 
concentrations of certain atmospheric trace gases and projected global warming 



'Prepared by John Justus, Specialist in Earth and Ocean Sciences, Science 
Policy Research Division. 



CRS-10 



clearly would be incomplete, much less capable of resolution, without proper 
recognition of the major role played by the world ocean, both as a factor in 
climate maintenance and as a major actor in the variability and change of 
Earth's climate over decades to centuries to millennia. A better understanding 
of the interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere is necessary, if 
predictions of global change are to be based on sound scientific judgment and, 
particularly, if forecasts of monthly, seasonal, and interannual climatic 
variability are to be meaningful and accurate for the public and for 
policymakers. 

With the beginning of the 1990s, there is a demonstrable interest and 
commitment among many countries and groups of countries around the world 
to contribute funds and in-kind support for ocean science. With this support, 
the international scientific community is mounting global scale initiatives to 
observe and understand the world ocean, employing new technology, 
instruments, and techniques for observing the state of the ocean and for 
measuring oceanic constituents, properties, and processes, both remotely and in 
situ. Coupled with vastly expanded capabilities in microelectronics and 
computer technology for sensing, transmitting, processing, analyzing, and 
disseminating the data, there is the prospect of major advances in describing and 
understanding oceanic behavior. 

Status of the Issue 

Several ambitious field programs are being coordinated by such 
international organizations as the United Nations Environment Program 
(UNEP); the U.N. World Meteorological Organization (WMO); the U.N. 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); and the 
International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU). These programs include: the 
Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS); the World Climate Research Program 
(WCRP); Global Energy and Water Balance Experiment (GEWEX); International 
Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP); World Ocean Circulation 
Experiment (WOCE); Tropical Ocean/Global Atmosphere Program (TOGA); 
International Global Atmospheric Chemistry Program (IGAC) and the Global 
Tropospheric Chemistry Program (GTCP); Joint Global Ocean Flux Study 
(JGOFS); Global Ocean Euphotic Zone Study (GOEZS); Land-Ocean 
Interactions in the Coastal Zone; Atlantic Climate Change Program; Arctic 
System Science Program (ARCSS); Greenland Sea Project; Marginal Ice Zone 
Experiment (MIZEX); Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics Program (GLOBEC); 
and International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP). These global programs 
employ space-borne observations for measuring oceanic wind stress, sea level 
variability, wave height, sea surface temperature and topography, ice sheet 
topography, oceanic circulation, gravity, and color of the sea surface for chemical 
information and biological productivity. Simultaneous collection of surface and 
subsurface data from research vessels and platforms is pursued in direct support 
of the oceanographic components of these programs and also for corroboration 
with the data received from the satellite leg of these missions. 



CRS-11 Living Marine Resources 



U.S. national support for and participation in these projects is integrated 
under the Global Ocean Science Program (GOSP), an interagency effort 
coordinated under the auspices of the Federal Global Change Research Program 
and focused on five key areas: (1) global ocean structure and dynamics; (2) 
atmosphere-ocean interactions that drive global climate; (3) global ecosystems 
and productivity processes; (4) the global ocean lithosphere and geoprocesses; 
and (5) processes in the coastal margins and polar oceans. The GOSP is 
conducted under the cooperative leadership of the National Research Council 
and the Federal agencies with major ocean science interests and responsibilities: 
Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
National Science Foundation, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Navy. 
Through a White House interagency coordinating body called the Committee on 
Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES), these agencies in conjunction with 
the Office of Management and Budget have implemented a coherent program of 
focused global ocean science research. This program is comprised of 
enhancements of existing programs plus some new starts and is carried out in 
the scientific context of active national and international planning to support 
broader studies of global environmental change. 

When space-borne data from these global-scale, international observing 
programs are complemented with data obtained from accompanying remote 
sensing technologies such as drifting buoy arrays, moored data buoy platforms, 
subsurface drifters, surface floats, and acoustic tomography networks, the 
potential exists for observing the ocean three-dimensionally on basin scales to 
near global scales. This, however, presents challenges in terms of cost, 
infrastructure requirements, and scale of operations. 

Questions 

Global change programs are receiving high priority in the funding plans of 
many nations; however, there are likely to be more programs being planned 
than could be funded adequately by the mechanisms and arrangements used in 
the past. 

1. Even if programs are stretched out and appropriately sequenced, are the 
physical resources and facilities adequate for, or national policy drives 
commensurate with, sustaining the research initiatives over time frames 
sufficient to yield clear scientific results, much less process and interpret 
the vast streams of data to yield meaningful information for policjonakers 
and the public? 

2. What are some of the improvements, if any, in the infrastructure that 
would be needed to sustain these scientific efforts or to conduct them in 
ways that are better, faster, and cheaper: e.g., global measurement systems 
already in place? New in situ measuring techniques and instruments, such 
as autonomous underwater vehicles and unmanned aircraft? New 
supercomputers, and new communications technologies and networks for 



CRS-12 Living Marine Resources 



delivering data as needed to researchers and operational users? Newly 
developed and validated models to use the new global data sets? 

3. Regarding present and future satellite instrumentation, what, for example, 
is the status of such key supporting missions as the NASA scatterometer 
(NSCAT), and the SeaWiFS ocean color sensor? Does the current design 
configuration for NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS) adequately 
address the research and instrumentation needs of the ocean science 
community, or might some of those needs and science requirements be 
addressed in a more timely and budget conscious fashion with small 
satellites dedicated to specific missions? 

4. The joint French-U.S. satellite mission to measure ocean-surface 
"topography", TOPEX-Poseidon, was successfully launched in August 1992 
and has been mapping global ocean circulation on a routine basis since 
September 1992. This project has been judged to have had a successful 
beginning and is well underway to observing global ocean circulation for 3 
to 5 years. Given the promising results obtained by the TOPEX-Poseidon 
mission thus far and the need to maintain observations of ocean circulation 
and sea-level changes over decades to help understand climate change, how 
might a series of altimetric missions with the TOPEX-Poseidon level of 
accuracy, or better, be implemented? Cooperatively? Multinationally? 
Appropriate steps to design and implement such a program jointly among 
principals could serve as a timely contribution to the International Global 
Ocean Observing System (GOOS) currently being planned under the 
auspices of the U.N. World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the U.N. 
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), the United Nations 
Environment Program (UNEP), and the International Council of Scientific 
Unions (ICSU) auspices. 

5. What are the special needs, if any, of the Federal and academic fleet and 
laboratory centers and of special large facilities to support the U.S. GOSP? 
Moreover, how would any needed improvements be funded? 

6. The long-term nature of the research portended makes it especially 
vulnerable to instability in support, and interruptions might lead to 
disbanding active research teams, in and out of Government, which might 
not easily be reassembled. Viewed against the backdrop of policies for fiscal 
restraint and deficit reduction, many programs supported with Federal 
funds, including the GOSP, seem likely to feel pressure in budget reduction 
exercises. What research strategies will best serve the national interest in 
a period of budgetary stress? What options have or could be examined for 
maintaining a functioning ocean research enterprise while reducing the 
deficit? Can support be assured for the future of the longer term 
programs? 

7. To what extent might outside participation of a direct or in-kind nature be 
anticipated from private entities (e.g., labs, institutions, industry) as 
possible partners in sponsoring and funding portions of the U.S. GOSP? 



CRS-13 Living Marine Resources 



Should creating university-industry alliances and establishing Government- 
industry or Government-university cooperative institutes of partnerships 
be investigated? 

8. Many policymakers are attracted to international collaboration because it 
is a way of saving U.S. dollars. Concerns arise, however, over the 
possibility that foreign partners might gain a "free ride" on U.S. 
technological expertise. In these collaborative ocean science projects, to 
what extent is the United States gaining access to foreign technical 
expertise or facilities, and are our international partners sharing equitably 
in the burden of funding and implementing projects? 

9. Concerns also may arise among potential international partners over the 
performance record of the U.S. Government in funding large, international 
science projects. To what extent might this discourage some nations from 
cooperative involvement with the United States in ocean science projects? 

10. What efforts have been made or what programs exist at the international 
level to facilitate involvement of developing country scientists productively 
and meaningfully in many of these ocean science programs? 

11. Another issue that speaks to continuity of program is that of manpower, 
education, and training. Who will do ocean science in the next century? 
Who is in the talent pool? The emerging field of global change research 
might suffer far reaching consequences if young talent is neither attracted 
nor retained. This issue bears further consideration and study in the 
executive, congressional, and academic sectors. 

12. Might the harmonizing process of "Europe 1992" and the associated sense 
of unity foster the creation of new organizations to facilitate cross frontier 
cooperation in oceanic research? Could such new organizations be 
considered as possible vehicles for developing new fiscal and material 
resources in oceanography that might be tapped by the ocean science 
community? 

References 

Changing Climate and the Oceans. Oceanus v. 29, no. 4. [entire issue]. 

National Research Council. Ocean Studies Board. Oceanography in the Next 
Decade ~ Building New Partnerships. Washington, National Academy 
Press, 1992. 202 p. 

The Oceans and Global Warming ~ An Update. Oceanus, v. 32, no. 2. [entire 
issue]. 

Oceanus, v. 35., numbers 1-4, 1992. Four special issues featuring basic 
disciplines in ocean sciences: no. 1, spring 1992, marine chemistry; no. 2, 



CRS-14 Living Marine Resources 



summer 1992, physical oceanography; no. 3, fall 1992, biological 
oceanography; no. 4, winter 1992/93, marine geology and geophysics. 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Global Climate 
Change. IB89005, by John Justus and Wayne Morrissey. Washington, 
updated regularly. 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. The Role of the 
Ocean in Global Warming, by John Justus. CRS Review, v. 11, Nov.-Dec. 
1990, p. 17-19. 

U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy. Federal Coordinating Council for 
Science, Engineering, and Technology. Committee on Earth and 
Environmental Sciences. Our Changing Planet: the FY 1994 U.S. Global 
Change Research Program. Washington, June 1993. 



CRS-15 Living Marine Resources 

WHALE CONSERVATION* 



Issue Definition 



The United States is a member of the International Whaling Commission 
(IWC), within which strong U.S. advocacy for whale conservation often conflicts 
with other nations' desires to harvest whales commercially. Most recently, 
evaluation by IWC scientists indicates that several whale populations are of 
sufficient size that limited commercial harvest could be sustained. The United 
States has relied upon unilateral sanctions to encourage whaling nations to give 
greater consideration to whale conservation. Because of larger whale population 
estimates, however, the issue is how to craft U.S. whale conservation policy now 
that foreign demands for limited harvesting can no longer be countered purely 
by scientific arguments that harvesting wdll compromise whale population 
recovery. If the United States argues for continuing the moratorium on 
commercial whaling, it may have to rely increasingly on moral and ethical 
appeals. A second concern is whether, when other nations harvest whales 
contrary to IWC guidelines, the currently available options for United States' 
response are adequate. 

Background and Analysis 

Under the auspices of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the 
United States and other whaling nations cooperatively allocated whale 
harvesting quotas as provided for under the 1946 International Convention for 
the Regulation of Whaling. In 1972, the United States enacted the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and prohibited commercial whaling by U.S. 
citizens. During the 1970s, U.S. efforts in international bodies shifted to 
advocacy for better whale conservation, and other non-whaling nations joined 
the IWC to support these conservation efforts. To encourage international fish 
and wildlife conservation, the United States enacted two measures providing for 
possible unilateral economic sanctions -- the 1971 Pelly Amendment (22 U.S.C. 
1978) to the 1954 Fishermen's Protective Act, which allowed fish and wildlife 
product imports to be prohibited from nations acting to diminish the effective- 
ness of international fish and wildlife agreements; and the 1979 Packwood- 
Magnuson Amendment (16 U.S.C. 1821) to the Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act of 1976, which allowed the United States to reduce or suspend 
fishing privileges in U.S. waters for nations acting contrary to IWC guidelines. 

Early U.S. whale conservation policy was based on scientific uncertainty 
concerning whale abundance, whose estimation depended on the rate at which 
whale populations might be recovering from earlier exploitation. Beginning in 
1935 with bowhead, right, and gray whales, the predecessor to the IWC had 
started prohibiting the harvest of large whale species. By 1980, harvesting 
focused almost entirely on smaller species such as minke whales, which had 



'Prepared by Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-16 Living Marine Resources 



heretofore not been extensively harvested. In addition, the Indian Ocean was 
proclaimed a whale sanctuary where all harvesting was prohibited. 

Most recently, environmental interests have sought to broaden U.S. policy 
on whale conservation to include moral and ethical reasons for extending the 
current moratorium on commercial harvesting, and to more fully recognize the 
non-consumptive values (i.e., non-lethal scientific research, tourism) of whales 
(57 Federal Register 4603, Feb. 6, 1992). 

The number of IWC members supporting whale conservation increased 
steadily until 1982, when this organization proclaimed a moratorium on all 
commercial whaling, fully effective in 1986. The IWC was to review 
comprehensively the effects of the moratorium by 1990 and to consider whether 
to modify the moratorium and re-establish harvest quotas for some species or 
populations. Concurrently, new management procedures were to be developed 
which would guard against future over-exploitation. To continue whale 
research, which the IWC allowed during the moratorium, Japan and several 
other nations self-issued permits for scientific research involving the killing of 
minke, fin, and sei whales from several populations. However, the IWC 
repeatedly asked these nations to reconsider their research plans to minimize 
lethal takes, and conservationists attacked this research as a means of 
circumventing the intent of the moratorium. Since the IWC had no power to 
force nations to abide by its guidelines, the United States repeatedly initiated 
action under the authority of the Felly Amendment threatening unilateral 
economic sanctions against nations which acted contrary to IWC guidelines. 
Although Felly Amendment sanctions have never been imposed, the United 
States has obtained important concessions from offending nations to improve 
whale conservation. 

Despite the moratorium on commercial whaling, several nations continue 
to kill whales for "scientific research". Japan continues a research program on 
minke whales in the Antarctic, killing about 300 whales annually. Although 
Norway announced in April 1991 that its harvesters would take no more whales, 
this nation resumed scientific research on whales in 1992, killing 93-95 
northeast Atlantic minke whales, and continued this research program in 1993 
with the intent of killing 136 minke whales. 

Late in 1991, a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) dispute 
panel came to a decision that could diminish the future effectiveness of 
unilateral environmental sanctions imposed by the United States. The dispute 
panel determined that the United States had exceeded its authority under GATT 
by imposing sanctions on Mexico for excessive dolphin mortalities during tuna 
harvesting conducted outside U.S. jurisdiction. The dispute panel action made 
the use of the Felly Amendment to encourage whale conservation problematic, 
since specific language in the Felly Amendment limits its use to situations in 
which the import prDhibitions contemplated would be acceptable under GATT. 

Annual IWC meetings during the early 1990s focused on crafting acceptable 
new management procedures, as well as on status reviews of key populations on 



CRS-17 Living Marine Resources 



which some nations sought to resume commercial harvesting. The 1992 IWC 
meeting was particularly contentious as the Commission took the first steps to 
end the six-year moratorium and permit a limited resumption of commercial 
whaling on biologically healthy whale stocks. Citing the IWC's slow action on 
resumption of commercial whaling, Iceland withdrew from IWC membership and 
Norway announced that it would begin commercial harvest of northeast Atlantic 
minke whales in 1993. Both Japan and Norway believe the IWC estimates of 
minke whale population abundance (760,000 in the Antarctic and 86,700 in the 
northeast Atlantic) indicate that these stocks can sustain a limited commercial 
harvest. Japanese officials cite the traditional importance of whale products in 
Japanese culture as reason for continued interest in resuming commercial whale 
harvesting. 

Stattis of the Issue 

Meeting in May 1993 in Kyoto, Japan, IWC commissioners voted to deny 
a quota of 50 minke whales for coastal Japanese harvesters, to direct a working 
group to study a French-proposed Antarctic whale sanctuary which will be 
considered at the 1994 meeting in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, and (by a margin of 
18-6) to extend the moratorium on commercial whaling for another year. 
Norway reaffirmed its unilateral decision to resume commercial whaling, despite 
the IWC action. Subsequently, Norway announced a commercial quota of 160 
minke whales for the 1993 season, to be taken in addition to its research 
harvest. At least one environmental group asked consumers to boycott 
Norwegian products. Some suggest that European public opinion against 
commercial whaling could complicate Norway's bid to enter the European 
Community on Jan. 1, 1995, and anti-whaling groups threaten a boycott of the 
1994 Winter Oljonpics scheduled for Lillehammer, Norway. 

In the 102nd Congress, §201 of P.L. 102-582 expanded Presidential 
authority under the Pelly Amendment to pursue sanctions against non-fisheries 
imports from nations acting contrary to IWC guidelines. In the 103rd Congress, 
H.Con.Res. 34 passed both the House and Senate. The resolution supported 
extending and strengthening the IWC's moratorium on commercial whaling. 

Questions 

1. How do the Japanese and others interested in commercial whaling respond 
to the moral and ethical concerns for whale conservation? 

2. Should the International Whaling Commission's decisions be based on good 
science, or should factors related to politics or moral and ethical appeals 
also be considered? 

3. Should the United States press for whale conservation objectives based on 
moral and ethical grounds if this approach adversely affects relations with 
important allies? 

4. In order to increase our scientific knowledge of whales, what types and 
levels of research should be allowed? 



CRS-18 Living Marine Resoxirces 



References 



International Whaling Commission. The Comprehensive Assessment of Whale 
Stocks: the Early Years. Special issue 11. Cambridge, United Kingdom, 
1989. 210 p. 

Martin, Gene S., Jr., and James W. Brennan. Enforcing the International 
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling: The Pelly and Packwood- 
Magnuson Amendments. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 
1989. 17(2): 293-315. 

Sumi, Kazuo. The "Whale War" between Japan and the United States: 
Problems and Prospects. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 
1989. 17(2): 317-372. 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Marine Mammal 
Issues. CRS Issue Brief IB92126, by Eugene H. Buck. Washington, 
updated regularly. 

— Whale Conservation. CRS Report 90-283 ENR, by Eugene H. Buck. 
Washington, Aug. 30, 1990. 18 p. 

U.S. Marine Mammal Commission. Annual Report to Congress, 1992. 
Washington, Jan. 31, 1993. 226 p. 



CRS-19 Living Marine Resources 

SHRIMP FISHERY CONCERNS* 



Issue Definition 



Sea turtles, most species of which have been declared threatened or 
endangered, may be inadvertently caught and drowned in trawl nets pulled by 
fishing vessels harvesting shrimp. The United States has reduced sea turtle 
mortality by requiring U.S. fishing vessels to use turtle excluder devices (TEDs) 
in their shrimp trawls to reduce the likelihood of turtles being caught and 
drowned, but turtle mortalities from foreign shrimp vessels may still be substan- 
tial. However, the use of TEDs reduces the efficiency of shrimp trawling, and 
some shrimpers say the economic impacts are severe. 

Background and Analysis 

Sea turtle conservation became a concern in the late 1970s and early 1980s. 
All five sea turtle species inhabiting State and Federal waters are protected 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Prior to current sea turtle 
conservation efforts, at least 11,000 sea turtles (and probably several times this 
estimate, according to the National Academy of Sciences) were killed each year 
by shrimp trawlers in U.S. waters. For the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, annual 
mortality was estimated to have exceeded the number of females which came 
ashore to lay eggs. 

In 1990, after much litigation, TEDs became mandatory from March 1 
through November 30 in the Gulf of Mexico, and from May 1 through August 
31 in the South Atlantic (54 Federal Register 37812, Sept. 13, 1989). Some 
shrimpers claim that TEDs can reduce shrimp harvest 30 percent or more; the 
Federal Government says its tests indicate an average 10 percent reduction in 
harvest. Domestic shrimpers are heavily squeezed by low-cost imports, which 
provided more than 77 percent of the total U.S. shrimp supply in 1991. To 
assist both sea turtles and U.S. shrimpers, §610 of P.L. 101-162 prohibited 
imports of shrimp after May 1, 1991, from nations whose fishing practices 
adversely affect sea turtle conservation. The U.S. Government published 
standards for determining foreign compliance (56 Federal Register 1051, January 
10, 1991; subsequently revised ~ 58 Federal Register 9015, February 18, 1993), 
and action has been taken to ban some shrimp imports. However, envir- 
onmental groups believe the U.S. Government has not acted expeditiously to 
sanction all harmful foreign shrimping practices, and have filed suit to force the 
imposition of additional sanctions. Although these sanctions have not been 
challenged under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), some 
question their acceptability. 

Reducing the incidental bycatch of fish in shrimp trawls may necessitate 
additional controls on shrimp harvesters- Harvesters criticize gear modification 



'Prepared by Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-20 Living Marine Resotirces 



to address bycatch if the modified gear is less efficient in catching target species, 
as has been reported for TEDs. Managers, on the other hand, suggest that if 
harvesters learn to use modified gear properly, little loss in efficiency should 
occur. A 1990 amendment to the Magnuson Act, §110(c) of P.L. 101-627, 
authorized a three-year study of the affects of bycatch from Gulf and South 
Atlantic shrimp trawlers, and prohibited Federal regulations to reduce shrimp 
trawl bycatch prior to 1994. In October 1992, North Carolina became one of the 
first States to require shrimp trawlers to use a finfish excluding device (FED, 
also called a bycatch reduction device, or BRD) in each trawl fished in State 
waters, primarily to reduce pressure on grey trout stocks. 

Status of the Issue 

On Dec. 4, 1992, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published 
new TED regulations (57 Federal Register 57348) requiring all shrimp trawlers 
more than 25 feet in length in the Gulf and South Atlantic to use TEDs year- 
round in offshore waters. By Dec. 1, 1994, all inshore shrimpers must also begin 
using TEDs. These regulations will be phased-in over a period of 2 years; strict 
Coast Guard enforcement of the initial phase began almost immediately. Some 
shrimpers continue to insist that requiring TEDs constitutes a legislative taking, 
and that they are due compensation. 

In response to U.S. efforts to encourage better turtle protection measures 
by nations exporting shrimp to the United States, 13 of the 14 foreign nations 
which harvest shrimp with trawls in the wider Caribbean supplied sufficient 
information concerning comparable programs for protecting turtles by the May 
1, 1991 deadline. Thus, imports were prohibited only from Suriname, which 
exports little shrimp to the United States; Suriname was subsequently found to 
be in compliance. These certifications extend for one year and must be renewed 
annually. In 1992, French Guiana was not certified as in compliance. In 1993, 
French Guiana, Honduras, Trinidad and Tobago, and Suriname were not 
certified as in compliance (58 Federal Register 28428, May 13, 1993); Trinidad 
and Tobago subsequently supplied information to verify compliance. By May 
1994, all fourteen nations must require TEDs if they wish to continue exporting 
shrimp to the United States. However, the Earth Island Institute filed suit 
early in 1992 against the U.S. Government seeking to force the immediate 
imposition of sanctions against all Caribbean and non-Caribbean shrimping 
nations which do not use TEDs. 

In the 102nd Congress, P.L. 102-567, the NOAA Authorization Act of 1992, 
included §310 requiring NMFS to complete a comprehensive economic study and 
report to Congress on the Gulf and South Atlantic shrimp industry to guide 
future policy decisions related to this fishery. A total of $1 million was 
authorized for FY1993. In addition, S. 47 and H.R. 1478 were introduced to 
moderate the impacts of TEDs use by shrimp harvesters by providing tax credits 
and authorizing funds for expanded efforts to .artificially culture sea turtles. No 
action was taken on either of these measures. 



CRS-21 Living Marine Resources 



Within the FY1993 appropriations for NMFS (P.L. 102-395), $716,000 was 
provided specifically for conservation engineering/bycatch research. The Gulf 
and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation used a $600,000 
Saltonstall-Kennedy grant, awarded in early summer 1991, to develop a plan to 
reduce finfish bycatch in the shrimp trawl fishery. In addition, incidental 
catch/bycatch research for shrimp trawl fisheries was identified as the priority 
issue for funding in the 1993 MARFIN (Marine Fisheries Initiative) Program for 
the Gulf of Mexico administered by 'NMFS. 

Questions 

1. What are the short- and long-term potential impacts of TED regulations on 
emplojrment and the local economies of Gulf coast communities and 
counties? 

2. Will enforcement of the restrictions on shrimp imports potentially allow 
domestic shrimp harvesters to improve their economic situation? What will 
be the cost to consumers? 

3. What is the extent of the economic disruption of the shrimp industry 
caused by TED regulations? To what extent have sea turtles benefitted 
from greater use of TEDs? 

4. How effective are alternative means of enhancing sea turtle survival {e.g., 
sea turtle hatcheries and headstarting programs)? Would these alternatives 
be less detrimental to the shrimp industry? What might be the costs for 
each turtle reared to adulthood by these alternative means? 

5. How has the Department of State interpretation of the P.L. 101-162 import 
sanction provisions affected foreign acceptance of TEDs? 

References 

Clark, Joy, et al. Simulated Economic Impact of TED Regulations on Selected 
Vessels in the Texas Shrimp Fishery. Marine Fisheries Review, 1991. 
53(2): 1-8. 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Turtle Excluder 
Devices: Sea Turtles and/or Shrimp? CRS Report 90-327, by Eugene H. 
Buck. Washington, Nov. 28, 1990. 15 p. 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environ- 
ment. Sea Turtle Conservation and the Shrimp Industry. Hearing, 101st 
Cong., 2d Sess. May 1, 1990. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Office, 1990. 
326 p. 

U.S. National Research Council. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and 
Prevention. Washington, National Academy Press, 1990. 190 p. 



CRS-22 Living Marine Resources 

fflGH-SEAS DRIFTNETS* 



Issue Definition 

In the quest for an efficient harvest, fishing fleets around the world employ 
a variety of fishing technologies. Some vessels have deployed driftnets 
measuring many tens of miles in length to ensnare a portion of this harvest ~ 
squid and pomfret were sought in the North Pacific. The United States and 
conservation interests worldwide became concerned with the incidental mortality 
of large volumes of non-target marine life {e.g., sea birds, marine mammals, sea 
turtles, and non-commercial fish) in these nets. Mounting concern led to 
adoption of an international accord to prohibit the use of large-scale (i.e., length 
exceeding IV2 miles) driftnets. Enforcing this international prohibition is a 
challenge. 

Background and Analysis 

Driftnets hang like curtains of unattended netting from floats and may 
stretch tens of miles in length. This fishing gear can ensnare anything which 
blunders into its meshes. Fishing vessels leave these nets overnight, retrieve the 
entangled catch, and reset this gear for another harvest. The nonspecific nature 
of the harvest and the wasted bycatch spark intense criticism of this fishery. 

Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of Korea fished extensively with high seas 
driftnets in the Pacific. Under the Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Assessment, and 
Control Act of 1987 (Title IV, P.L. 100-220), the United States negotiated 
independent bilateral agreements with these three nations to better monitor 
driftnet fishing in the North Pacific Ocean. On November 24, 1989, 20 nations 
of the South Pacific adopted the Wellington Convention for the Prohibition of 
Fishing with Long Driftnets in the South Pacific. On December 22, 1989, the 
U.N. General Assembly adopted by consensus a non-binding resolution (Number 
44/225) calling for an end to driftnet fishing in the South Pacific by July 1, 
1991, and a worldwide cessation on use of this gear one year later, unless 
effective conservation and management measures were taken to guide this gear's 
use. 

The Driftnet Act Amendments of 1990 (§107, P.L. 101-627) implemented 
the U.N. moratorium, supported South Pacific efforts, and directed that work 
continue on negotiations to obtain a permanent ban on destructive fishing 
practices. Meanwhile, other nations began to use large driftnets in the 
Mediterranean Sea. 

In response to continued concern for high-seas driftnetting and in the face 
of initial resistance by Japan and others, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a 
second resolution concerning high-seas driftnets. After negotiations, Japan 



'Prepared by Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-23 Living Marine Resources 



indicated a willingness to end driftnet fishing, and on December 20, 1991, the 
U.N. General Assembly agreed to a U.S.-sponsored non-binding resolution 
(Number 46/215) which halved driftnet fishing by June 30, 1992, and uncondi- 
tionally banned all high-seas driftnet fishing after December 31, 1992. 

Status of the Issue 

Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of Korea have ceased fishing with 
driftnets. However, continued driftnet fishing by Chinese vessels presents a 
continuing enforcement problem; several Chinese vessels were detected fishing 
with driftnets in the North Pacific in May 1993, and were intercepted by the 
U.S. Coast Guard. 

To increase the effectiveness of U.N. resolutions prohibiting large-scale 
driftnet fishing. Congress enacted the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement 
Act (P.L. 102-582). Measures to accomplish this intent included denial of U.S. 
port privileges to foreign driftnet vessels, mandatory sanctions on fish products 
from countries that continue driftnet fishing beyond the U.N. deadline, and 
expanded Presidential authority under the Pelly Amendment (22 U.S.C. 1978) 
to the 1954 Fishermen's Protective Act to pursue sanctions against non-fisheries 
imports. As of early June 1993, none of these provisions had been invoked. 

Questions 

1. How much effort should be devoted to developing alternatives to driftnets 
for harvesting living marine resources on the high seas with minimized 
incidental non-target bycatch; and how should such a program be financed? 

2. What is the status of research on quantif3nng and assessing the impacts of 
driftnet harvesting and in evaluating alternative solutions? 

3. How does the magnitude of high-seas driftnet bycatch compare with 
bycatch rates in domestic fisheries, such as salmon gillnetting, groundfish 
trawling, and shrimp trawling? 

4. What technologies from the Department of Defense and elsewhere can be 
used to improve enforcement of the worldwide prohibition of high seas 
driftnet fishing? 

References 

Burke, William T. Regulation of Driftnet Fishing on the High Seas and the 
New International Law of the Sea. The Georgetown International 
Environmental Law Review. 3 (1990):265-310. 



CRS-24 



U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the 
Environment. High Seas Driftnet Fishing. Hearing, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 
August 6, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Office, 1991. 115 p. 

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 
National Ocean Policy Study. High Seas Driftnet Fishing. Hearing, 102d 
Cong., 1st Sess. June 21, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Office, 1992. 
84 p. 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Driftnets: A 
Controversial Fishing Method. CRS Report 90-311 ENR, by Eugene H. 
Buck. Washington, September 20, 1990. 15 p. 



CRS-25 Living Marine Resoxirces 

MINIMIZING OR USING FISHERIES WASTES' 



Issue Definition 

In the process of harvesting seafood, fish and other marine Hfe which are 
not target species also may be caught. This bycatch often does not survive the 
rigors of harvesting and is discarded, providing no benefits. Success in 
addressing two waste and bycatch issues (dolphin mortality by the tuna industry 
and high seas driftnetting) has encouraged a growing constituency to seek to 
minimize, or productively use, this bycatch. 

Background and Analysis 

Bottom trawls scour and damage bottom habitat; shrimp trawls can capture 
almost ten times as much bycatch as marketable shrimp; tens of thousands of 
juvenile halibut are killed by the Alaska pollock, flatfish, and cod trawl fisheries; 
Alaska pollock carcasses have been discarded as waste after roe is removed from 
females or when size is deemed too small for efficient processing; and many non- 
target species (including birds and marine mammals) die in gillnets. These and 
other instances of poor utilization are becoming increasingly scrutinized as 
circumstances in which environmental damage might be minimized, waste might 
be transformed into an economically profitable product, and the image of the 
commercial fishing industry could be enhanced. In fact, with many fishery 
stocks harvested at rates near or exceeding their maximum yields, waste utiliza- 
tion may represent one of the few remaining ways to increase the production of 
protein from marine resources during the 21st Century. However, inefficient 
and non-selective fishing gear encourages bycatch, while the minimal economic 
value of most bycatch impedes its beneficial use. 

In response to increasing problems with Gulf of Mexico finfish populations, 
the 101st Congress enacted §110(c) of the Fishery Conservation Amendments of 
1990 (P.L. 101-627). This provision focused on incidental harvest concerns with 
shrimp trawling, establishing a three-year program to assess incidental harvest 
by shrimp trawling and evaluating gear technology alternatives for reducing this 
incidental mortality. The Federal Government is prohibited from implementing 
certain measures to reduce incidental harvest in the shrimp trawl fishery prior 
to 1994. 

Status of the Issue 

In the 102nd Congress, P.L. 102-582 dealt with enforcement of the 
worldwide prohibition on using high-seas driftnets, and incidental harvest was 
raised as a concern in H.R. 2588 dealing with declining weakfish populations. 
No action was taken on this second measure in the 102nd Congress, although 



'Prepared by Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-26 Living Marine Resources 

interjurisdictional fisheries legislation encompassing these concerns was 
reintroduced as H.R. 2134 in the 103rd Congress. 

Within the FY1993 appropriations (P.L. 102-395) for the National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS), $716,000 was provided specifically for conservation 
engineering/by-catch research. The Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries 
Development Foundation used a $600,000 Saltonstall-Kennedy grant, awarded 
in early summer 1991, to develop a plan to reduce finfish bycatch in the shrimp 
trawl fishery. In addition, incidental catch/bycatch research for shrimp and 
other fisheries was identified as the priority issue for funding in the 1993 
MARFIN (Marine Fisheries Initiative) Program for the Gulf of Mexico 
administered by the NMFS. 

Questions 

1. How much marine protein is wasted annually by the U.S. commercial 
fishing industry? How much of this might be productively recovered and 
utilized? 

2. What incentives might encourage the fishing industry to pay more 
attention to waste minimization or use, or should penalties for excessive 
waste be invoked under certain circumstances or for certain segments of the 
fishing industry? 

3. Might fisheries waste utilization programs be linked with national welfare 
or supplemental feeding programs to provide food to address dietary 
deficiencies? 

4. What is the prospect that changing market or trade patterns, evolving 
consumer preferences, or product engineering breakthroughs might alter 
the demand and/or economic situation for bycatch? 

References 

Bricklemyer, Eugene C., Jr., et al. Discarded Catch in U.S. Commercial Marine 
Fisheries. In "Audubon Wildlife Report 1989/1990." The National Audubon 
Society, New York, 1989, Academic Press, Inc. p. 259-295. 

California Sea Grant College. Effects of Different Fishery Management Schemes 
on Bycatch, Joint Catch, and Discards. La Jolla, University of California, 
1990. 55 p. 

Center for Marine Conservation. Proceedings of the Shrimp Trawl Bycatch 
Workshop. Washington, 1992. 183 p. 

U.S. Library of Congress. -Congressional Research Service. Waste from Fish 
Harvesting and Processing: Growing Environmental Concerns. CRS 
Report 90-575 ENR, by Eugene H. Buck. Washington, Dec. 9, 1990. 14 p. 



CRS-27 Living Marine Resources 

DOLPHIN PROTECTION ISSUES' 



Issue Definition 



Since dolphins and related porpoises inhabit most U.S. marine waters, they 
are a very visible barometer of how effectively marine mammal protection laws 
are being implemented. Current issues involve interactions with seafood 
harvesters, swim-with-the-dolphin programs, dolphin feeding, military use of 
dolphins, epidemic mortalities of dolphins, and cooperative international 
management. 

Background and Analysis 

At least 44 species of dolphins and porpoise are recognized by marine 
scientists. These warm-blooded, air-breathing mammals inhabit most marine 
environments from equatorial to sub-arctic waters, while a few Asian and Latin 
American species are restricted to freshwater drainages. Most common species 
along the U.S. coasts are bottlenose and Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Atlantic 
Ocean); bottlenose and spotted dolphins (Gulf of Mexico); bottlenose. Pacific 
white-sided, and common dolphins (Pacific Ocean); and Ball's porpoise, harbor 
porpoise, and killer whales (coastal Alaska). Three species of dolphin have been 
declared endangered under the provisions of the U.S. Endangered Species Act - 
- the vaquita (Gulf of California harbor porpoise), the Chinese river dolphin, and 
the Indus River dolphin. 

Public concern for better protection of dolphins and porpoises encouraged 
initial congressional attention to marine mammal legislation. The 1972 Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA, P.L. 92-522, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) proclaimed 
a moratorium on taking (defined to include harassment, hunting, capturing, or 
killing, or attempts to do any of these) of marine mammals. The Act provides 
that the moratorium on taking can be waived for specific purposes (excluding 
public display and scientific research, for which permits may be issued), if the 
taking will not harm the affected species or population. It provides that permits 
may be issued to take any marine mammal species, including endangered, 
threatened, and depleted species, for purposes of scientific research. These 
permits must specify numbers and species of animals to be taken as well as 
times, dates, places, and methods of taking. It also provides that permits may 
be issued to take non-depleted species in the course of commercial fishing 
operations and for public display. 

The Act also provides that U.S. citizens who engage in certain activities 
{e.g., offshore oil and gas exploration and development) may be exempted from 
the waiver and permit requirements to allow incidental, unintentional taking of 
small numbers of marine mammals after notice and opportunity for public 
comment. The National Marine ^Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the National 



'Prepared by Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-28 Living Marine Resoxirces 



Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U.S. Department of Commerce) is 
responsible for MMPA regulations affecting dolphins and porpoises. 

In the eastern tropical Pacific (ETP) Ocean, large yellowfin tuna congregate 
beneath schools of dolphin, especially common, spotted, and spinner dolphins. 
In order to capture these tuna, harvesters encircle dolphins (and hopefully the 
tuna swimming beneath) with large purse seine nets. Initial use of this 
technique resulted in extensive dolphin entanglement and death in the nets; 
more than 500,000 may have been killed in 1960 alone. Under a series of 
MMPA permits granted the tuna seiners, fishing techniques were modified and 
dolphin mortality declined. In the late 1980s, the tuna seiners operated under 
an annual quota which permitted not more than 20,500 dolphin deaths. 
Although mortalities by U.S. vessels have decreased markedly, total dolphin 
mortalities increased with expanding foreign tuna seining under less stringent 
regulations. For 1990, incidental dolphin mortalities in the ETP totaled 5,083 
by U.S. vessels and 47,448 by foreign vessels. In June 1992, the United States 
and other tuna harvesting nations formally adopted a multilateral program to 
reduce the international dolphin mortality in the ETP to less than 5,000 by 
1999 through the establishment of annual mortality limits. However, this 
program could be superseded if the moratorium authorized by P.L. 102-523 (see 
following section) is concluded. 

The U.S. Navy has captured and trained Atlantic bottlenose dolphins for 
use in sonar research and to act as mine hunters and "watchdogs" at naval 
facilities in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf, and possibly at U.S. nuclear 
submarine facilities. Annual capture of as many as 25 dolphins is authorized by 
Congress in §1354 of P.L. 99-661 (10 U.S.C. 7524) ~ the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987. This legislation has been criticized by 
animal rights interests because it allows the program to disregard provisions of 
the MMPA. More recently, P.L. 102-172 directed the Navy to, and appropriated 
funds for, release back into the wild of captive marine mammals no longer 
required. 

Status of the Issue 

MMPA amendments in 1988 (P.L. 100-711) sought to reduce dolphin deaths 
attributed to foreign tuna seining by requiring nations exporting tuna to the 
United States to employ more stringent dolphin protection measures. 
Importation of Mexican tuna (as well as tuna from several other nations) was 
prohibited in October 1990 under this provision, after U.S. District Court action. 
However, Mexico protested this action as contrary to U.S. obligations under the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and a dispute panel reported 
in August 1991 favoring Mexico. Under a subsequent court order early in 1992, 
U.S. tuna import sanctions were extended to a host of intermediary nations. 

Late in 1992, Congress enacted P.L. 102-523 clarifying the definition of an 
intermediary nation to reduce the number of countries adversely affected, 
making it illegal to sell tuna which is not dolphin-safe after March 1, 1994, and 
authorizing negotiation of a moratorium on harvesting tuna by surrounding 



CRS-29 Living Marine Resources 



dolphins; Venezuela and Mexico previously indicated that they would adhere to 
such a moratorium. If a moratorium agreement is reached, the U.S. tuna fleet's 
authorization to set nets around dolphins will expire on March 1, 1994. More 
importantly, the environmental community believes GATT concerns with MMPA 
tuna sanctions are made moot by this legislation. 

On April 12, 1990, three major U.S. tuna canners announced that they no 
longer would accept and sell tuna harvested in association with dolphins. 
Legislation was introduced to mandate a labeling program for canned tuna to 
identify whether or not it was harvested in a "dolphin-safe" manner. Title IX of 
P.L. 101-627, the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act, established 
standards for labeling canned tuna as "dolphin-safe" and called for negotiations 
to eliminate tuna seining on dolphins. In response to this action, almost all U.S. 
tuna seiners have ceased fishing for tuna with seines in the ETP, and have 
emigrated to the Western Pacific where tuna do not congregate beneath schools 
of dolphins. The High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act, P.L. 102-582, 
prohibited the importation of tuna which is not dolphin-safe. 

In 1985, NMFS permitted the first of four enterprises currently offering 
recreational swimming in controlled conditions with captive Atlantic bottlenose 
dolphins. Environmental groups argued this activity was unacceptable under 
the MMPA. NMFS evaluated these programs in 1990 (55 Federal Register 
28081, July 9, 1990), and decided to continue the existing permits for further 
evaluation, but to withhold permits from new applicants. NMFS has initiated 
a dolphin behavioral study to further evaluate existing swim-with-the-dolphin 
programs, and expects this study to be completed by the end of 1993. 

In 1988, concern developed over promotion of tourist cruises which feed 
dolphins for the sole purpose of encouraging human-dolphin encounters. NMFS 
prohibited this activity (56 Federal Register 11693, March 20, 1991) as an illegal 
taking under the MMPA which might disrupt normal dolphin behavior patterns. 
However, a Corpus Christi tour operator took legal action against NMFS 
(Strong V. United States), and on Sept. 30, 1992, the District Court judge 
prohibited NMFS from enforcing these regulations for dolphins. NMFS is 
interpreting this court ruling as applicable to all U.S. waters, while considering 
whether to appeal the decision. 

As a result of numerous deaths, public concern has over the health of 
marine mammals and their ecosystems has increased. In 1987-88, more than 
740 bottlenose dolphins died and were washed ashore on the Atlantic coast. In 
late 1988, Congress requested a study and held a hearing (House Merchant 
Marine, Serial No. 101-20). The study implicated toxic algal blooms as a 
possible causal factor in the mortalities. Other studies noted that some animals 
had very high levels of anthropogenic contaminants and argued that they may 
have been a causal factor. Since the 1987-88 die-off, a number of other deaths 
have further elevated public concern. In 1990, there was an increase in the 
number of stranded bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico, and in early 1992, 
large numbers of bottlenose dolphins stranded in a two-county area in Texas. 
In 1990-91, a die-off of striped dolphins occurred in the Mediterranean. 



CRS-30 Living Marine Resoxirces 



Questions 

1. Should the United States encourage the International Whaling Commission 
to give more attention to dolphin protection concerns, and if so, how? 

2. To what extent do dolphins directly compete with humans for fishery 
resources? To what degree does this competition pose an economic problem 
for certain fisheries? 

3. To what extent does public education and contact with dolphins increase 
or diminish our ability to protect dolphins? 

4. To what extent should experimentation using dolphins to assist humans to 
accomplish otherwise difficult work in the marine environment be allowed? 

References 

DeMaster, Douglas P., and Jeannie K. Drevenak. Survivorship Patterns in 
Three Species of Captive Cetaceans. Marine Mammal Science, October 
1988. 4(4): 297-311. 

McDorman, Ted L. The GATT Consistency of U.S. Fish Import Embargoes to 
Stop Driftnet Fishing and Save Whales, Dolphins and Turtles. George 
Washington Journal of International Law and Economics, v. 24, no. 3 
(1991): 477-525. 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environ- 
ment. Review of the Administration's Proposal to Promote Dolphin 
Protection. Hearing, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. March 18, 1992. Washington, 
U.S. Govt. Print. Office, 1992. 406 p. 

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Trade and Environment: 
Confiicts and Opportunities. OTA-BP-ITE-94. Washington, U.S. Govt. 
Print. Off., May 1992. 109 p. 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Dolphin Protection. 
CRS Report 92-828 ENR, by Eugene H. Buck. Washington, Nov. 20, 1992. 
5 p. 

— Tuna and the GATT. CRS Report 91-666 ENR, by Eugene H. Buck. 
Washington, Dec. 12, 1991. 7 p. 

U.S. Marine Mammal Commission. Annual report to Congress, 1992. 
Washington, Jan. 31, 1993. 226 p. 



CRS-31 Living Marine Resources 

MARINE MAMMAL - FISHERIES INTERACTIONS' 



Issue Definition 

Since marine mammals feed on living marine resources, human harvesting 
of fish and shellfish can result in the taking of marine mammals. Since any 
taking of marine mammals is regulated under the authority of the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), such fisheries interactions are carefully 
scrutinized. A primary objective of the MMPA is to reduce marine mammal 
mortalities and injuries from commercial fishing operations to insignificant 
levels approaching zero. Thus, how best to minimize marine mammal mortality 
caused by fishing is a controversial issue. 

Background and Analysis 

In response to an incidental take permit for Ball's porpoise granted to the 
Japanese North Pacific high seas salmon gillnet fleet, a lawsuit was filed by 
environmental groups and Alaska fish harvesters {Kokechik Fisherman's 
Association v. Secretary of Commerce). In June 1987, a Federal court injunction 
halted the Japanese salmon fishery. This decision was upheld in subsequent 
appeals all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, on the grounds that optimum 
sustainable population levels had not been determined for several marine 
mammal species that might be caught, and thus it could not be determined 
whether or not these marine mammal populations were depleted. This decision 
provided the basis for potentially successful challenges to MMPA incidental take 
permits for many domestic fisheries. Thus, MMPA amendments enacted in 1988 
addressed this issue by providing a blanket incidental take exemption for 
domestic commercial fisheries through FY1993, while requiring that the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) develop a new regime for regulating 
incidental marine mammal take in these fisheries after October 1, 1993. 

To obtain necessary data on which to base this new regime, NMFS assigned 
all domestic commercial fisheries to one of three different categories, depending 
upon the likelihood of encountering and taking marine mammals. In fisheries 
assigned to Category I, in which encounters with marine mammals were believed 
most likely, fishing vessels were required to carry observers, if requested, to 
obtain data on the interactions. These data were to provide the basis for 
developing new regulatory regime. 

Status of the Issue 

As required by the 1988 MMPA amendments, the Marine Mammal 
Commission (MMC) developed draft guidelines to govern the taking of marine 
mammals incidental to commercial fishing, received public comment on these 
guidelines, and delivered revised guideUnes to the NMFS on July 12, 1990. 



'Prepared by Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-32 Living Marine Resoxirces 



After considering these guidelines, the NMFS published a proposed regulatory 
regime on May 24, 1991 (56 Federal Register 23958-23964), and solicited public 
comment. One of the most controversial elements of the NMFS proposal was 
the concept of allowable biological removal, in which a numerical maximum total 
annual removal from each marine mammal population would be specified, and 
these removals would be allocated among user groups. Responding to comment, 
the NMFS announced its revised proposal on November 20, 1991 (56 Federal 
Register 61231-61232), and changed its basic concept to focus on potential 
biological removal, which does not prejudge whether this may be allowable. 

After additional modifications, the proposed regime was forwarded to 
Congress by NMFS on December 4, 1992. The proposed regime provides a 
system for working with all available information, incorporating new data from 
monitoring and assessment programs, and including substantive participation 
by scientific and public groups. The proposal consists of comprehensive stock 
assessment programs, potential biological removal (PBR) determinations and 
allocations among all known user groups, and monitoring and enforcement. The 
regime provides for: 1) the goal of maintaining marine mammal stocks at their 
optimum sustainable populations; 2) identifying fisheries that take depleted, 
endangered or threatened marine mammal stocks, or remove individuals from 
a stock whose current level of take, from all sources, exceeds its calculated PBR; 
3) calculating PBRs from stock assessment data; 4) allocating PBRs among user 
groups; 5) authorizing and regulating takes from endangered, threatened, and 
depleted stocks through a small-take application process; 6) monitoring of 
marine mammal takes during fishing operations; 7) permitting takes through 
a registration-application system; 8) enforcing allocations; and 9) retaining the 
zero mortality goal. 

A counter-proposal, concluded by representatives of seven conservation 
organizations and more than 30 commercial fishing industry groups on June 10, 
1993, offered an alternative to the NMFS approach. The counter-proposal 
would not require fishing vessel registration, would not classify individual 
fisheries, would place the burden of proof on the Federal Government to prove 
that marine mammal stock would be harmed by commercial fishing activities, 
and would establish conservation teams for marine mammal species requiring 
special management. However, a coalition of about 20 other conservation 
groups expressed concerns that the counter-proposal would set a dangerous 
precedent by providing a means whereby threatened and endangered marine 
mammals could be killed during commercial fishing, and by allowing the killing 
of "nuisance" marine mammals. NMFS faulted the counter-proposal for 
authorizing the incidental taking of marine mammals unless the Secretary of 
Commerce demonstrates that such taking would be detrimental to marine 
mammal populations. Congress responded with the introduction of H.R. 2760 
providing for a new regime incorporating elements of both the NMFS proposal 
and the fishing industry-conservation group alternative. However with time 
running out as the October 1, 1993 deadline approached, H.R. 3049 was 
introduced to extend the Interim Exemption through April 1, 1994 and to allow 
more time for Congress to craft an acceptable new regime. 



CRS-33 Living Marine Resources 



Questions 

1. How stringently should the United States seek zero mortality and injury 
to marine mammals, given increasing economic costs? 

2. Should the United States increase funding for research on the degree to 
which some human activities indirectly harm marine mammals by altering 
ecosystems {e.g., large commercial harvests of Ush upon which marine 
mammals feed)? 

3. What funding will be necessary to implement the new regime to regulate 
incidental taking of marine mammals during commercial fishing? 

References 

Griffin, Rodman D. Marine Mammals vs. Fish. CQ Researcher, v. 2, no. 32 
(Aug. 28, 1992): 739-758. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. Proposed Regime to Govern Interactions 
Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fishing Operations. National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
Nov. 1992. 96 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Administration of 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972: Jan. 1, 1990 to Dec. 31, 1990. 
Washington, 1991. 33 p. 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Marine Mammal 
Issues. CRS Issue Brief IB92126, by Eugene H. Buck. Washington, 
updated regularly. 

— The Marine Mammal Protection Act: Reauthorization Issues. CRS Report 
93-185 ENR, by Jennifer Heck and Eugene H. Buck. Washington, Feb. 1, 
1993. 37 p. 

U.S. Marine Mammal Commission. Annual Report to Congress, 1991. 
Washington, Jan. 31, 1992. 227 p. 

Waring, Gorton T., et al. Incidental Take of Marine Mammals in Foreign 
Fishery Activities Off the Northeast United States, 1977-88. Fishery 
Bulletin, 1990. 88(2): 347-360. 



CRS-34 Living Marine Resources 



OCEAN FISHERIES AND THE MAGNUSON ACT: 
IMPLEMENTATION AND REAUTHORIZATION CONCERNS' 



Issue Definition 

In 1991, U.S. commercial fish harvesters landed more than 10.1 billion 
pounds offish and shellfish. Of this total, almost 5.8 billion pounds was taken 
from Federal waters beyond State jurisdiction. The Magnuson Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) of 1976, as amended, governs 
Federal management of fisheries outside coastal State waters to 200 miles 
offshore. Legislation to reauthorize this Act is under consideration during the 
103d Congress, potentially including an extensive package of amendments to the 
parent law. 

Background and Analysis 

The enactment of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) 
of 1976 (later renamed the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (MFCMA) for the late Senator Warren G. Magnuson) ushered in a new era 
of marine fisheries management for the United States. The MFCMA was signed 
into law on April 13, 1976, after several years of debate on extending fisheries 
jurisdiction. On March 1, 1977, fisheries resources within 200 miles of all U.S. 
coasts came under Federal jurisdiction, and an entirely new multifaceted 
regional management system began allocating harvesting rights, with priority 
given to domestic enterprises. Exclusive Federal management authority was 
vested in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce. The 
200-mile fisheries conservation zone was superseded by an Exclusive Economic 
Zone (EEZ), proclaimed by President Reagan on March 10, 1983 (Presidential 
Proclamation 5030). 

Under provisions of the MFCMA, eight Regional Fishery Management 
Councils were established for the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, 
Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, Western Pacific, and North Pacific regions. 
The eight Councils prepare fishery management plans (FMPs) for those 
fisheries, both commercial and recreational, which they determine to require 
active Federal management. An environmental assessment or environmental 
impact statement is prepared for every FMP submitted. After public hearings 
on these plans, revised FMPs are submitted to the Secretary of Commerce for 
approval. Implementing regulations are published in the Federal Register. 
Completed plans may be amended and revised through similar procedures. 
Together these Councils have implemented 35 FMPs for various fish and 
shellfish resources, with 6 additional plans being developed. Some plans are 
created for individual or a few closely related species {e.g., FMPs for northern 
anchovy by the Pacific Council and for shrimp by the Gulf of Mexico Council). 



'Prepared by Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-35 Living Marine Resources 



Others are developed for unrelated species in similar habitats (e.g., FMPs for 
Gulf of Alaska groundfish by the North Pacific Council and for reef fish by the 
Gulf of Mexico Council). Many of the implemented plans have undergone 
subsequent amendment (one has been amended 25 times), and four plans have 
been developed and implemented jointly by two or more Councils. 

Initially under MFCMA authority, a substantial portion of fishery resources 
in offshore waters under Federal jurisdiction was allocated for foreign harvest. 
However, foreign allocations have been reduced as domestic fish harvesting and 
processing industries have expanded. Under the MFCMA, foreign harvests from 
the U.S. EEZ declined from about 3.8 billion pounds in 1977, to only about 12 
million pounds in 1991. Commensurate with the decline of foreign harvest, 
domestic offshore catch increased from about 1.56 billion pounds (1977) to more 
than 5.79 billion pounds (1991). Thus, the percent offish harvested by foreign 
nations from the U.S. EEZ declined from 71 percent in 1977 to about 0.2 
percent in 1991. 

Since 1977, total offshore fisheries harvest from the U.S. EEZ increased 
about 24 percent to a peak of 6.65 billion pounds annually in 1986-1988, but has 
subsequently declined 13 percent to 5.79 billion pounds in 1991. Currently, the 
largest offshore fishery, in terms of volume landed, is Alaska pollock, with more 
than 2.8 billion pounds harvested in 1991. By value, Gulf of Mexico shrimp 
(more than $270 million) and Alaska pollock (more than $238 million) were the 
leading fisheries in 1991. Of 153 species groups of U.S. fish assessed by NMFS, 
65 (42%) are overutilized, and another 57 groups (37%) are considered to be 
fully utilized. 

Status of the Issue 

Legislation introduced during the 102nd Congress dealt primarily with 
localized issues. P.L. 102-130 contained a section which deleted a MFCMA 
provision requiring that a fishery management plan (FMP) be prepared for 
Atlantic striped bass in the EEZ. Title m of P.L. 102-251 provided for fisheries 
management in the isolated pocket of international waters (the "donut hole") in 
the Bering Sea between waters under U.S. and Russian jurisdiction. P.L. 102- 
567 mandated several fisheries studies, established a shellfish research program, 
authorized funding for NMFS fisheries programs (Title IH), implemented an 
international treaty on salmon management in the North Pacific (Title Vni), 
and enhanced enforcement and provided for underutilized species development 
off New England (Title DC). P.L. 102-582 provided for fisheries enforcement for 
U.S. vessels operating outside U.S. jurisdiction in the Central Bering Sea (Title 
ni), and repealed the user fee on recreational boats (Title V). P.L. 102-587 
approved a fisheries agreement with Estonia (Title I) and implemented an 
international treaty on salmon management in the North Pacific (Title VUI). 

Early in the 103rd Congress, H.R. 780 was introduced, providing for 
reauthorization of MFCMA appropriations without additional amendments to 
the Act. During MFCMA reauthorization, however, many issues are likely to be 
debated in a regional, rather than national, context. Some of the more 



CRS-36 Living Marine Resources 



controversial issues include: 1) increasing attention to conservation of fish 
stocks and restoration of overharvested populations; 2) assuring that Regional 
Council representation and decisions are fair and balanced; 3) clarif3dng when 
and how fisheries overcapitalization should be addressed through limiting 
access; and 4) removing the restriction on fee collection to permit user fees and 
other charges which could be directed to fund conservation and management 
activities. Other prominent issues may include increasing emphasis on preserva- 
tion of ecosystem health and long-term resource productivity, modifying FMP 
criteria, directing more attention to bycatch concerns, enhancing data collection, 
and providing more effective enforcement. Some of these issues have arisen 
repeatedly, and the MFCMA has been amended previously in attempts to resolve 
them. 

Questions 

1. What modifications, if any, are needed to revise the MFCMA to meet the 
demands of a totally domestic fishery in the EEZ? 

2. What lessons were learned from legislating on specific FMPs in previous 
reauthorizations of the MFCMA? Does congressional involvement in 
intimate Council management issues indicate a need for modification of 
Council authority? 

3. Does the MFCMA adequately balance the competing demands for 
conservation and development of marine living resources? If not, what 
modifications of the Act would help achieve this balance? 

4. Does the current system of membership on Regional Fishery Management 
Councils facilitate or hamper rational management decisionmaking for EEZ 
fishery resources? 

References 

Acona, Douglas M. Managing United States Marine Fisheries. Natural 
Resources & Environment, Spring 1990. 4(4): 23-25, 56-57. 

McHugh, J. L. Fisheries Management Under the Magnuson Act: Is it Working? 
Ocean Development and International Law, 1990. 21(3): 255-261. 

Miller, Morton M., et al. Impressions of Ocean Fisheries Management Under the 
Magnuson Act. Ocean Development and International Law, 1990. 21(3): 
263-287. 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Needs Assessment of the National 
Marine Fisheries Service. Washington, 1990. 315 p. 

U.S. Congress. General Accounting Office. Fisheries: Commerce Needs to 
Improve Fisheries Management in the North Pacific. GAO/RCED-91-96. 
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, March 1991. 38 p. 



CRS-37 Living Marine Resources 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration. National Marine Fisheries Service. Our Living Oceans: 
Report on the Status of U.S. Living Marine Resources, 1992. Washington 
December 1992. 148 p. 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Marine Fisheries 
Issues. CRS Issue Brief IB93004, by Eugene H. Buck. Washington, 
updated regularly. 

The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act: 

Reauthorization Issues. CRS Report 93-88 ENR, by Eugene H. Buck. 
Washington, Jan. 25, 1993. 47 p. 

Wise, John P. Federal conservation & management of marine fisheries in the 
United States. Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, 1991. 278 p. 



CRS-38 Living Marine Resources 

SEAFOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION' 



Issue Definition 

Unlike meat and poultry, seafood is not subject to mandatory, continuous 
Government inspection for safety and wholesomeness. While recent research 
has tied consumption to some health benefits, seafood also has been associated 
with a number of illnesses caused by chemical or biological contaminants. Some 
consumer advocates have argued that many types of fish and shellfish pose a 
significant public health risk and that a new, more aggressive inspection 
program should be enacted to deal with the problem. Others have countered 
that most seafood is safe to eat and that current programs are adequate or 
simply could be operated more effectively. At issue are the need for such an 
effort, whether new legislation should mandate it, and the appropriate type of 
program and administering agency, among other things. 

Background and Analysis 

Several consumer groups have argued that fish and shellfish pose a major 
health risk because, unlike meat and poultry products, they are not required to 
undergo rigorous Federal inspection. Opponents of major changes believe that 
more inspection would be too expensive and impractical for seafood, which is 
harvested in the wild rather than raised on farms, and involves a far more 
diverse industry than meat and poultry. At any rate, opponents argue that 
more government inspection would not necessarily mean a safer product. 

Seafood already is subject to Federal inspection, but under a system 
markedly different from that for meat and poultry. The Federal Meat Inspection 
Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act require U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) inspectors to be in plants at all times of operation to 
conduct "continuous" inspection; that is, to examine virtually every head of 
cattle, sheep, swine and goat, and every chicken, turkey, goose, and duck at 
slaughter, and to visit daily all plants that further process them into edible 
products. 

Although seafood is not subject to mandatory continuous inspection, several 
Federal and State agencies have responsibilities to assure its quality and safety 
under a number of existing laws. The Department of Health and Human 
Services' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a broad mandate under the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to assure the safety of all foods in 
interstate commerce, including seafood. FDA also works cooperatively with 
States and industry in a voluntary shellfish sanitation program. The Commerce 
Department's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) offers, for a fee, 
voluntary seafood inspection, mainly as a marketing and quality rather than 
safety program. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has primary 



'Prepared by Geoffrey S. Becker, Specialist in Agricultural Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-39 Living Marine Resources 



responsibility for reducing water pollution, a source of many seafood-borne 
contaminants. 

What is the risk of eating seafood? The National Academy of Sciences 
(NAS) in early 1991 released a study concluding that most seafoods available to 
consumers are wholesome and unlikely to cause illness. A study of Federal 
health data found that, from 1978 to 1987, for all foodborne illnesses, seafood- 
borne illnesses constituted 10.5 percent of all outbreaks (incidents involving two 
or more sick persons) but 3.6 percent of all cases (single ill persons). This 
compares with beef at 4 percent of all cases, turkey at 3.7 percent, pork at 2.7 
percent, and chicken at 2.6 percent. 

However, if all shellfish were excluded from the data, fish-related illnesses 
would have represented just 1.2 percent of all foodborne illness cases during the 
period. NAS reported that the overwhelming majority of seafood illness is 
related to the consumption of raw or undercooked molluscan shellfish (clams, 
oysters, mussels), which pick up pathogenic bacteria and viruses (often but not 
always from sewage) in the water. Most other seafood-related illnesses are due 
to naturally-occurring toxins in finfish-ciguatera that certain reef-dwelling fish 
acquire in the water, and scombroid poisoning that occurs through mishandling 
of some species after harvest. Chemical contamination of fish is more difficult 
to document because its effects are longer-term. One of NAS's general 
conclusions is that most seafood health hazards are tied to conditions in the 
environment (as opposed to, for example, processing). 

Status of the Issue 

Advocates of seafood inspection legislation were unable to win enactment 
of seafood inspection legislation in the 101st or 102nd Congress, despite 
intensive deliberations and relatively widespread agreement among consumer 
and industry groups, and many lawmakers, that a more aggressive program 
would be desirable. Among other obstacles were disagreements over: which 
department (Health and Human Services, Commerce, or USDA) should have the 
lead; how stringent and comprehensive a new program should be; whether 
standards could and should be set for chemical and microbiological 
contaminants; and the cost of such a program, including who should pay for it. 

Although interest in such legislation has extended into the 103rd Congress, 
prospects for passage of a bill are uncertain at best. As of early June, only one 
seafood safety bill (H.R. 1412, establishing a National Shellfish Safety Program) 
had been introduced into either the House or Senate. 

Meanwhile, FDA has been using existing legislative authority to strengthen 
its current fish and shellfish safety programs. Early in 1993, the agency 
announced that it soon would publish regulations requiring much of the 
industry to adopt so-called "Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point" (HLACCP) 
procedures. These procedures analyze health and safety risks, determine where 
risks can be controlled in production and handling, and concentrate oversight 
resources on those points. The agency received an increased appropriation to 



CRS-40 Livintf Marine Resources 



create a new Office of Seafood in 1991 and, in 1992, had completed a round of 
special safety inspections of the roughly 4,000 U.S. seafood plants. The agency 
gave 95 percent of the plants a "clean bill of health" and found "readily 
correctable" problems at the remaining plants. 

Questions 

1. What is the most appropriate type (and level) of seafood inspection, 
particularly in light of the NAS findings on hazards and risks? Is the 
current array of programs, including the new regulatory initiative by FDA 
and NMFS, adequate to address these hazards and risks? If not, should 
legislation be enacted to close current gaps in the system? 

2. If legislation is considered, should it be aimed at modifying existing 
programs, or is an overhaul warranted? 

3. Would an enhanced effort of any type actually provide consumers with a 
safer supply of seafood than currently? 

4. Which agency or agencies should be responsible for seafood inspection, 
whether in its present or some modified form? If inspection changes are 
relatively minor, could the current roles of NMFS, FDA, and USDA remain 
basically the same? If major changes are deemed appropriate, who should 
be given the new duties — USDA, which already inspects other flesh foods? 
FDA, which monitors the safety of all other foods; NMFS, which already 
works with the seafood industry on a voluntary basis; or a combination of 
all three? 

5. Given that NAS's chief findings pinpoint environmental reasons for the 
most important health hazards, should Government oversight focus on 
environmental controls, including monitoring waters and those who harvest 
from them? What role should EPA play, if any? 

6. Since moUuscan shellfish are the source of the preponderance of seafood- 
borne illnesses, should any new program be focused on that source? Might 
improvements in the existing Federal-State-industry shellfish program 
suffice? 

7. What would be the practical aspects of implementing a new program? 
Because the seafood industry is far more diverse than meat and poultry, 
with hundreds of fish species already on the market, would it be difficult 
to establish standards for all the potential chemical and microbiological 
contaminants? Can methods be developed now to rapidly test for all such 
contaminants? 

8. How much might the design of a more aggressive program be governed by 
cost factors? How would it be funded? Do current Federal budget 
constraints limit the extent of any new effort funded by taxpayers? What 
about user fees? 



CRS-41 Living Marine Resoxirces 



9. How would new inspection requirements affect the structure and 
performance of the industry itself? Is it likely that any new industry 
compliance costs would be passed through the marketing chain to 
consumers? What would be seafood's competitive position relative to other 
flesh foods like meat and poultry? 

10. There is a consensus that imports (accounting for more than half of all U.S. 
seafood consumption) should be subject to the same standards as U.S. 
products, but how can these imports be monitored without violating 
international trade rules? 

References 

National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. 
Seafood Safety. 1991. 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Seafood Inspection 
Issues in the 102d Congress. Archived Issue Brief 92079, by Geoffrey 
Becker. Washington. 



CRS-42 The Coastal Environment 

COASTAL DEMOGRAPHICS AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS' 

Issue Definition 

Population in the United States continues to concentrate along the coasts, 
with a declining portion remaining in the heartland. Over the next 20 years, 
population in coastal counties is projected to increase from 80 million to 127 
million. As the population grays and retires, coastal locations are increasingly 
attractive destinations. These retirees, as well as others who prefer coastal 
locations, in turn, attract supporting businesses and industry. 

At issue is how to deal with the environmental impacts of this growth. 
Many coastal areas that attract development are also very fragile, and 
development can disrupt coastal ecosystems and destroy economic and ecologic 
values. The result is that many of the very qualities that attract more people 
to the coast are being reduced or destroyed. There is interest in examining 
innovative ways to protect these environments and resources so that the 
attracting qualities will remain for future generations. 

Background and Analysis 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reviewed population 
trends along the coasts from 1960 to 2010 in a 1990 report. This analysis 
examined coastal county and coastal state population trends using Bureau of 
Census data up to 1988 and projections into the future. The results are 
striking. 

When examining the 451 coastal counties of the country (there are more 
than 3000 counties or their equivalents in all), the analysts found that a 
growing portion of the population has been and continues to concentrate in 
coastal areas. At the State level, among the leaders in growth in absolute 
numbers between 1960 and 2010 are California (19.2 million), Texas (11.6 
million), and Florida (11.2 million). The leaders in percentage change over the 
same time period will include Florida (226 percent) and Alaska (208 percent). 
The study predicts that while overall growth will slow over the next 20 years, 
it will remain slightly greater in coastal areas than in non-coastal areas. It 
concludes that 17 of the 20 States with the greatest population growth for this 
50-year period will be coastal states. 

Coastal growth is not equally distributed. While coastal Oregon and 
Washington counties, for example, are likely to grow relatively slowly, coastal 
areas in the South are likely to grow rapidly. In terms of absolute increases in 
population between now and 2010, eight coastal counties in Florida and 
California are projected to be among the ten most rapidly growing ones in the 
entire country. The result of past and future patterns of growth is that 

'Prepared by Jeffrey A. Zinn, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-43 The Coastal Environment 



population density in most coastal States and many coastal counties is much 
higher than the national and State averages, respectively. The most densely 
populated coastal areas include the northeastern States between Massachusetts 
and Pennsylvania, Florida, California, and Ohio and Illinois along the Great 
Lakes. 

The pattern of growth has changed in recent decades, and in ways that 
threaten more coastal resources. Until the 1960s, growth was concentrated in 
urban areas and their suburbs; obvious examples include New York City, Miami, 
Los Angeles, and Chicago. While these urban concentrations greatly stressed 
coastal systems, they encompassed only a relatively small portion of the total 
coast. Starting in the 1950s, for a variety of reasons, coastal development 
rapidly spread to more rural coastal areas. Reasons for this dispersal include an 
increase in general affluence and demand for second homes and vacation 
destinations, improved transportation systems (especially the interstate road 
network) and a growing number of retirees seeking amenity areas. This growth 
has been explosive in some areas; Cape Cod, Massachusetts and Hilton Head, 
South Carolina are but two of many possible examples of this change. 

Another important characteristic of this change is that, while much of the 
earlier growth had taken place along protected and semi-protected areas, 
especially harbors and ports, much of the new development has taken place 
along the open coast. This newer development can disrupt dynamic beach 
systems, and has put rapidly-expanding private and related public investment 
at risk from coastal storms and changing coastal profiles. Florida's experience 
in 1992 with Hurricane Andrew could be a precursor of the magnitude of coastal 
problems that could be caused by future hurricanes. The direct effects on public 
and private investment, and residual costs such as the availability of insurance 
for coastal property in southern Florida, indicate the high cost that can 
accompany coastal development. 

Statiis of the Issue 

As the average age of the population continues to increase, along with the 
overall population, there is every reason to anticipate that demand for 
development in coastal areas will continue to grow. Congressional interest will 
center not on the demographics, per se, but on the possible effects of more 
people in coastal areas. Congress has already addressed aspects of these 
concerns through programs such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, National 
Flood Insurance Program, and various infrastructure and environmental 
protection programs. Recent amendments show how these concerns have 
changed since these programs were first enacted. Two conclusions are apparent 
when one examines the current array of Federal programs. First, some may 
work at cross purposes; some encourage development (in the broadest sense), 
while others discourage it. Second, there is no coherent approach to recognizing 
and responding to current demographic trends in national policy discussions. 
But efforts to define a coherent and consistent national approach likely will 
increase as more people choose to move to coastal areas. 



CRS-44 The Coastal Environment 



Questions 

1. Should Congress use demographic trends as a basis for developing more 
consistent Federal policies toward development in coastal areas? 

2. Can Federal policies be used to encourage a sounder and safer pattern of 
future development in coastal areas? 

3. Should Congress be more concerned with demographic predictions in 
setting policy? If so, how can Congress more effectively integrate this 
information into the policy process? 

References 

Edwards, S.F. Estimates of Future Demographic Changes in the Coastal Zone. 
Coastal Management, 1989. 17(3): 229-240. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Ocean Service. 50 Years of Population Change 
Along the Nation's Coast: 1960-2010. Rockville, MD, 1990. 41p. 



CRS-45 The Coastal Environment 

COASTAL WETLANDS* 



Issue Definition 

Wetlands, areas where upland and water environments overlap, are 
concentrated in some coastal areas, especially along the south Atlantic and Gulf 
coasts. The various values that are unique to these areas have been increasingly 
appreciated in recent years, but at the same time, a portion of the remaining 
acreage is being destroyed or damaged by development and other activities. The 
particulars of the issue vary from place to place, but the forces at work are 
generally the same. At issue is the effectiveness of various Federal (and State) 
wetlands protection efforts. Some activities are regulated through a permit 
program administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under §404 of the 
Clean Water Act, but this provision deals only with disposal of dredge or fill 
material. Protection advocates are seeking a broader wetlands statute. Both 
protection advocates and development interests also debate whether coastal 
wetlands deserve specific recognition, both as an important subset of all 
wetlands, because of their different hydrologic and biologic properties and 
because of concentrated modification pressures. 

Background and Analysis 

Coastal wetlands occur in a wide variety of forms, but they all have 
distinctive plant assemblages because of the wetness of the soil. Many coastal 
wetlands are flooded daily as the tide rises and falls. The value of coastal 
wetlands depends on location, size, and relationships with adjacent land and 
water areas. Wetland values can include: 

habitat for aquatic birds and other animals; 

habitat for rare or endangered species; 

production of fish and shellfish; 

water storage, including limiting the effects of floods; 

water purification; 

recreation; 

timber production; 

food production; 

education and research; and 

open space and aesthetic values. 

Usually wetlands provide a mix of these values; no single wetland provides 
all of them at the same time. Many of these values decline when wetlands are 
altered. In addition, alterations at some distance can affect wetlands because 
they are part of larger water systems. For example, in coastal areas, conversion 
of wetlands to urban uses can increase the cost of flood damage because wetland 
areas typically provide natural storage and slow the release of flood waters. 



'Prepared by Jeffrey A. Zinn, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-46 The Coastal Environment 



Wetlands have been disappearing at a rapid rate through most of this 
country's history. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that only 104 
million acres remain of the 220 million that were here when the country was 
first settled. More recently, the Service has estimated that the current rate of 
loss (between the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s) is about 290,000 acres per year. 
This is a significant decline from an earlier survey, from the mid-1950s to the 
mid-1970s, when the loss rate averaged nearly 500,000 acres per year. 

Coastal wetlands are probably disappearing less rapidly than all wetlands 
for two reasons. First, many of the conversions have been to drain these lands 
for agriculture; coastal wetlands, especially in salt water environments, are not 
attractive sites for agricultural production. Second, efforts to protect wetlands 
in this country focused on coastal areas initially; there is a relatively strong and 
lengthy tradition of Federal and State efforts to protect coastal wetland areas. 
In a study of wetlands loss in the Mid Atlantic States between the 1950s and 
1970s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that coastal wetland losses 
were much smaller than the inland wetland losses. The major causes of coastal 
wetland loss were identified as urban development and encroachment by coastal 
waters caused by impoundments, dredging projects, and rising sea level. (By 
contrast, the major causes of freshwater wetlands loss were other development, 
agriculture, and ponds.) 

Expansion of coastal waters at the expense of wetlands is a problem in 
many areas. The most notable, because of the shear magnitude of both the 
amount of loss and the reservoir of remaining wetlands that could be lost, is 
Louisiana. Estimates of annual wetland loss range up to about 60 square miles 
(38,000 acres). High loss rates are partially attributed to natural phenomena, 
including sea level rise and settling of the land. But in the case of Louisiana, 
it is also attributed to several human factors, including dredging channels 
through the wetlands that have disrupted water flows, and impediments 
upstream on the Mississippi River and its tributaries that have halted the flow 
of sediments and altered the rates and patterns of fresh water flows around its 
delta. 

Status of the Issue 

Wetlands are currently a major national issue as the 103rd Congress 
debates alternative proposals to amend the Federal permit program under §404 
of the Clean Water Act and as the National Academy of Sciences studies wetland 
delineation issues. Controversy over wetlands protection was pronounced under 
the Bush Administration, which attempted to implement a general policy of no 
net loss while trying still to satisfy environmental development constituencies. 

The wetlands issue temporarily abated until the Clinton Administration 
announced its positions on possible revisions to §404 in August 1993, and until 
the National Academy of Sciences completes its delineation study. Many 
interests, however, believe that the status quo is temporary, and that program 
and policy changes must occur. There has been no indication that the Clinton 
Administration will give wetlands high visibility as the Bush Administration did, 



CRS-47 The Coastal Enviromnent 



lending to much of the subsequent debate. While there were more than 24 days 
of wetlands hearings in the 102nd Congress, the 103rd Congress has given little 
attention to wetlands to date. 

Questions 

1. Is a new and more encompassing Federal wetlands statute needed to replace 
the §404 program? 

2. Should coastal wetlands receive special attention within Federal wetland 
protection efforts because of the extreme pressures they are under and 
because of their unique biological and hydrological characteristics? 

3. Can the full diversity of coastal wetlands be recognized through a single 
Federal program? 

4. Should wetlands protection efforts recognize classes of wetlands based on 
functions and values? 

5. Should State and Federal wetlands protection efforts be better integrated? 

References 

National Wetlands Policy Forum. Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action 
Agenda. Washington, Conservation Foundation, 1988. 69p. 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife and the Environment. Wetlands 
Conservation. Hearings, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. Oct. 16 and Nov. 21, 1991. 
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1992. 998p. 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation. 
Subcommittee on Water Resources. The Reauthorization of the Federal 
Clean Water Pollution Control Act: Protection and Wetlands. Hearings, 
102d Cong., 1st Sess. Oct. 15, 16, 22, 23, 30, and 31, 1991. Washington, 
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1992. 2012p. Serial No. 102-43. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wetlands Losses in 
the United States: 1780s to 1980s. Washington. 1990. 13p. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. Wetlands Overview: Federal and State 
Policies, Legislation, and Programs. GAO/RCED-92-79 FS. Washington, 
Nov. 1991. 93p. 



CRS-48 The Coastal Environment 



MARINE SANCTUARIES PROGRAM* 



Issue Definition 

The national marine sanctuaries program, authorized in 1972 through Title 
in of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), allows for 
the designation of protected areas in Federal and State coastal and ocean waters 
for multiple purpose use. At issue for Congress is reauthorization of the 
program and possible amendments that address perceived program problems. 
Specific issues of concern are whether or how to regulate activities outside a 
marine sanctuary that may adversely affect the protected values within, 
streamlining the designation process, new designations, whether to broaden 
designation criteria, funding, and whether to allow oil and gas leasing as a per- 
missible activity within a designated sanctuary. 

Background and Analysis 

The national marine sanctuaries program is administered by the Depart- 
ment of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 
As of 1992, NOAA had designated 13 sanctuaries (11 exist now because of 
subsequent combining of sanctuaries in Florida). NOAA is considering other 
sites for designation. 

Congress enacted the 1972 legislation because of public concern over oil 
spills and increased dumping of waste materials into coastal waters. The 
sanctuaries program offers a unique Federal mechanism to provide 
comprehensive regulation, planning, and management of defined marine areas 
to assure long-term preservation of the specified resource values. 

Other Federal laws may provide protection for single purposes within the 
same area, but do not provide the comprehensive protection that accompanies 
sanctuary designation. Examples of other interactive Federal laws are the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended, Comprehensive Oilspill Liability Act 
of 1990, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water 
Act, Title I of the MPRSA (Ocean Dumping Act), Coastal Zone Management Act, 
and Federal historic preservation laws. 

Congress amended Title EI of the MPRSA in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992. 
The 1980 amendments (P.L. 96-332) gave veto authority to the adjacent States 
and Congress for a designation or any of its terms. The amendments also 
required that the terms of designation include the characteristics of the area 
that give it conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic value. The 1984 
amendments (P.L. 98-498) changed the procedures by which sanctuaries were 
selected and designated ~ requiring the consideration of specific factors 
(historical, research, or educational were added to the four existing values), 



'Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-49 The Coastal Environment 



wider consultation, environmental studies, and compatible multiple use. The 
1988 amendments (P.L. 100-627, Title 11) contained provisions for compensation 
for destruction or loss of, or injury to, sanctuary resources. Of specific interest 
were the vessel liability provisions, which could be applied to oil spills or other 
actions that damage marine sanctuary resources. 

The 1992 amendments (P.L. 102-587, Title 11) prohibited activities outside 
a marine sanctuary that adversely may harm the protected values within, 
prohibited offshore oil and gas leasing within specified designated sanctuaries, 
improved the timeliness of sanctuary designation (which many claimed had been 
too slow and inefficient), designated three new sanctuaries, broadened 
designation criteria, and authorized funding for FY 1993 through FY 1996. 

Status of the Issue 

The next reauthorization of Title HI of the MPRSA is expected in 1996. 
Until that time, the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and the 
Senate Commerce Committee are likely to hold oversight hearings. At this time, 
there are no significant issues that the next reauthorization needs to resolve. 

Questions 

1. Should the designation process be further streamlined? Critics point out 
that Congress designates land-based parallels-such as national wildlife 
refuges, parks, and wilderness areas~and suggest that Congress should 
designate marine sanctuaries and allow NOAA only to manage them. 
Pressure to allow Congress to designate marine sanctuaries is propelled, in 
part, by criticism that the current process includes excessive delay and 
duplication of effort, and in part because some of the affected parties 
believe that their concerns do not receive adequate attention. Previous 
changes to improve the site selection and designation process to require 
more consultation, opportunities for public input, environmental analysis, 
and resource assessment may better accommodate affected interests, but 
inadvertently have resulted in a longer designation process. Additionally, 
Congress, through the authority of provisions in the 1980 amendments, 
may veto a designation or any of its terms if both Houses adopt a 
concurrent resolution disapproving the unacceptable items. When Congress 
has taken advantage of this provision, as it did in the Cordell Bank NMS 
designation, it lengthens the process further. 

2. Should new designations be made? If new designations are made, will there 
be adequate funding available for the existing as well as new designations? 
Sanctuary designation largely was placed on hold during the 1980s, due to 
a combination of bureaucratic problems in the sanctuary designation 
process which delayed the designation of candidate sites and Reagan 
Administration opposition to the program. 

3. Should the sanctuary designation criteria be broadened? The various 
amendments to the sanctuary program have broadened the factors that 



CRS-50 The Coastal Enviromnent 



could be considered in site selection or designation; the House 
reauthorization would have broadened these factors to include cultural 
qualities, international significance, and research. 

4. Is the funding for the program adequate? When enacted in 1972, Congress 
authorized $10 million per year. Congress has never appropriated this 
amount of money for the program, and currently the program is funded at 
half this amount. Environmentalists (and a NOAA-commissioned study) 
have recommended that an adequate level of funding for the current 
program would be $30 million per year. If new sanctuaries are designated, 
however, additional funds may be required. Reauthorization legislation 
would increase funding, although not to $30 million, and would provide 
authority for donations to be used in sanctuary management. 

References 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 
Subcommittees on Oceanography, Great Lakes and the Outer Continental 
Shelf; and on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment. 
The Current Status and Future Needs of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Sanctuary Program. 
Hearing, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. Nov. 7, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 
Off., 1992. Serial No. 102-55. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration. Marine Sanctuaries Review Team. National Marine 
Sanctuaries: Challenge and Opportunity. Washington, Feb. 22, 1991. 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Marine Sanctuaries 
Program: Issues in the 102nd Congress. CRS Issue Brief IB92085. by 
Malcolm M. Simmons. Washington, updated regularly. 



CRS-51 The Coastal Environment 



ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE SYSTEM* 



Issue Definition 

The Estuarine Research Reserve System, created as an element of the 
Federal Coastal Zone Management Program, encourages States to set aside 
examples of the Nation's coastal biogeographical regions for research and 
education. This program has proven popular; 21 sanctuaries have been 
designated, and 5 additional proposals are being considered. At issue is whether 
these sites are being used for the purposes that Congress intended, and, if not, 
how can Congress help resolve these shortcomings. The designated sanctuaries 
are listed below. 

Padilla Bay (WA) Hudson River (NY) 

South Slough (OR) Chesapeake Bay (MD) 

Elkhorn Slough (CA) Chesapeake Bay (VA) 

Tijuana River (CA) Sapelo Island (GA) 

Waimanu Valley (HI) Jabos Bay (PR) 

Old Woman Creek (OH) Rookery Bay (FL) 

Wells (ME) Appalchicola Bay (FL) 

Great Bay (NH) Weeks Bay (AL) 

Waquoit Bay (MA) North Inlet, Winyah Bay (SC) 

Narragansett Bay (RI) Ashepoe/Combahee/ 
North Carolina (NC) Edisto Basin (SC) 



Background and Analysis 

The National Estuarine Research Reserve System, known earlier as the 
National Estuarine Sanctuary Program, was initially authorized in the Coastal 
Zone Management Act of 1972. The system was envisioned as an integral 
component to the overall success of coastal zone management efforts. It was to 
provide natural laboratories in all the major coastal biogeographical regions that 
could be used for long-term research projects and education programs in support 
of State and Federal coastal zone management efforts. This system also was 
intended to protect habitats that are representative of the characteristics of the 
country's coastal regions. 

The System was renamed in 1985 amendments to the Coastal Zone 
Management Act. These amendments were designed to strengthen and improve 
coordination among the sanctuary sites, and to clarify relations between 
research efforts and sanctuary management. They articulated the important 
contribution that sanctuaries were expected to make to the coastal management 
effort, and added further definition to the Federal role in supporting the 
development of the reserve system. 



'Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-52 The Coastal Environment 



Each sanctuary operates education and research programs. These differ 
from site to site, depending on the characteristics of the sanctuary, the interests 
of the State program and the sanctuary manager, and other similar factors. 
Many sanctuaries have built facilities on site to present education programs and 
provide logistical support to researchers. All sanctuaries have either permanent 
staff or designated contacts within State government. Some of the reserve staff 
members at the older sites have been with their programs for a decade or more, 
providing continuity to their local effort, and also to the national program. The 
reserve managers convene national meetings periodically to discuss mutual 
problems and opportunities. These meetings provide a learning and exchange 
opportunity for both the managers and the Federal program staff. 

Status of the Issue 

The sanctuary program has proven popular with coastal States. Federal 
funds have been used to acquire lands and construct sanctuary facilities. 
However, several potential and real problems remain. One is funding. The 
Federal Coastal Zone Management program primarily sets the sites up, then the 
sites must seek money for their programs and facilities from other sources. 
These funds are needed to attract and support long-term research, and to 
develop and reach out with education programs that address the value and 
importance of protecting estuarine areas. 

While most of the sanctuaries have developed their own research programs, 
often with local universities, there is still only limited coordinated research that 
ties the sites together. This program will come closer to meeting its mandates 
if all of the biophysical regions are represented, and after NOAA implements an 
integrated national research program that takes advantage of the diversity of 
natural conditions and human modifications that are represented in the system. 



Questions 

1. Are Federal and State efforts to coordinate research and information among 
sites adequate? How can they be improved? What is the most effective 
Federal role in coordination? 

2. Does the system now represent all the basic biogeographical regions of the 
United States; if not, should priority be given to designations in the 
remaining unrepresented regions? 

3. What actions can be taken to make the system more valuable, as a system 
in the future? How does the system or NOAA help facilitate planning for 
the system's future? What are some of the major impediments to this 
planning, and how can they be overcome? 



CRS-53 The Coastal Environment 

Reference 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Ocean Service. Estuaries of the United States: 
Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base. Rockville, MD. 1990. 79p. 



CRS-54 The Coastal Environment 

COASTAL BARRIER PROTECTION* 



Issue Definition 

Coastal barriers, l3dng along the water's edge, are very popular and valuable 
development sites but are also among the most dangerous because of exposure 
to and changes caused by flooding and winds. Legislation was enacted in 1981 
and 1982 prohibiting most forms of Federal development assistance within 186 
designated undeveloped barriers in the Coastal Barrier Resources System 
(CBRS). The 101st Congress amended the CERA to increase the size of the 
CBRS from approximately 450,000 acres to 1,272,000 acres of undeveloped 
coastal barrier ("fastland") and associated aquatic habitat. 

The Federal Government continues to pay ever increasing costs for damage 
and disaster assistance in these areas. Congress may consider whether 
additional controls are needed, both in developed and undeveloped coastal 
barriers, to control this development, and thus limit Federal damage and 
disaster assistance costs in the future. 

Background and Analysis 

Most coastal barriers are elongated landforms that shift frequently and 
rapidly in response to storms, winds, and tides. These landforms provide 
important habitat for certain species and protect inland areas, wetlands, and 
estuaries from the brunt of ocean storms. Coastal barriers are also among the 
most valuable real estate in the country; the value is highest when the parcel 
is adjacent to the shoreline. Development has been rapid on many coastal 
barriers in recent decades, increasing the magnitude of the threat to life and 
property when major storms strike. 

In the early 1980s, legislation was enacted that removed most Federal 
subsidies that encourage development from designated coastal barriers along the 
Gulf and Atlantic coasts. Initial legislative action in 1981 removed the 
availability of Federal flood insurance for new construction on certain barrier 
islands identified by the Department of the Interior (DOI). A more 
encompassing enactment, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (CBRA), 
established the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), included the 186 
coastal barriers in the CBRS, and removed a variety of forms of Federal 
assistance, including grants for new water, sewage, and transportation systems. 

CBRA required DOI to report to Congress with any suggested modifications 
to the CBRS, including additions and deletions. The report, completed in 1988, 
recommended the inclusion of additional units along the Atlantic and Gulf 
coasts. For the first time, DOI recommended units for New Jersey, Maryland, 
the Florida Keys, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Congressional approval of 



'Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-55 The Coastal Environment 



these units would have increased the CBRS from 186 to 461 units, 666 to 1,089 
shoreline miles, and 0.45 to 1.2 million acres. Much of the increased acreage, 
however, would have come from adding associated aquatic habitat, such as 
adjacent wetlands, rather than from expanding the fastland area where 
development is most likely to occur. 

In 1988, Congress enacted the Great Lakes Barrier Act, which required DOI 
to identify additional units for the CBRS in the Great Lakes. The DOI 
identified, and recommended for inclusion in the CBRS, 112 Great Lakes units. 

In the 101st Congress, legislation (enacted as P.L. 101-591) carried out 
many of the recommendations in the DOI report, including expanding the CBRS 
from approximately 452,000 acres to 1,272,000 acres of undeveloped coastal 
barrier ("fastland") and associated aquatic habitat. The 1990 additions to the 
CBRS included, for the first time, acreage in the Great Lakes (31,450 acres), the 
Florida Keys (66,500 acres), Puerto Rico (20,334 acres), and the Virgin Islands 
(3,775 acres). The enactment also required the DOI to prepare maps of 
undeveloped coastal barrier units on the Pacific Coast (except Alaska) and 
established processes for including Federal excess property and "otherwise 
protected areas" in the CBRS. Finally, the enactment required Federal agency 
self-certification of compliance with the CBRA, authorized a 2-year interagency 
task force for addressing additional options for the CBRS, and authorized 
appropriations of $1 million for each of fiscal years 1990 through 1993. 

Status of the Issue 

Despite the enactment of the CBRA and associated legislation, development 
in high-risk coastal areas continues. There are a variety of reasons for the 
continuing development. One is that DOI may not have designated and 
Congress approved as many units as they might have for the CBRS. Another 
is that coastal development, even on designated coastal barriers, might still be 
occurring to the extent that developers can find non-federal support for flood 
insurance as well as infrastructure. 

This continued coastal development~both on developed and undeveloped 
coastal barriers-raises the economic question of whether the Federal 
Government should in any way subsidize this development, or continue to pay 
(along with State/local governments and the private sector) for the increasing 
storm/flood damage and disaster assistance. An important and controversial 
consideration in this debate may be sea level rise. 

The impact of the 1990 CBRS additions on undeveloped coastal barriers is 
not known at this time: equally plausible, development may cease or decline on 
these designated units, or development may continue if private funding for 
infrastructure development and flood insurance is found. 

A question that remains for Congress is whether additional controls are 
needed to stem further development of "developed" as well as "undeveloped" 
coastal barriers. 



CRS-56 The Coastal Environment 



To this end, the 1990 CBRA Amendments established an interagency Task 
Force to conduct a 2-year study of additional options for the CBRS, including 
whether new Federal policies are needed to protect all coastal barriers, developed 
and undeveloped. The Task Force does not expect to begin deliberations until 
October 1993 and will do so only if there is a specific appropriation for it. 

Questions 

1. Should the Federal Government in any way subsidize further coastal 
development either on developed or undeveloped coastal barriers? 

2. To what extent will the possibility of sea level rise affect the debate on 
federally subsidized development of coastal barriers? 

3. To what extent will private funding for infrastructure development and 
flood insurance substitute for withdrawn Federal funding/subsidy? 

4. Should Congress make a specific appropriation to initiate the 2-year 
interagency Task Force study. If initiated and completed, how will the 
findings relate to the above questions? 

References 

Jones, Elise and William Stolzenburg. Building in the Coastal Barrier 
Resources System. Paper presented at Coastal Zone '89 Conference. 
Charleston, SC, July 13, 1989. 

Kuehn, Robert. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act and the Expenditures 
Limitation Approach to Natural Resources Conservation: Wave of the 
Future or Island Unto Itself? Ecology Law Quarterly, 11: 583-670. 

Miller, H. Crane and Richard L. Stroup. Turning the tide on wasted tax dollars. 
Washington, National Wildlife Federation and National Taxpayers Union, 
1989. 24 p. 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs. 
Subcommittee on Policy Research and Insurance. Hearing on the Coastal 
Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. 101st Cong., 2nd Sess. Sept. 11, 1990. 
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1991. 189 p. Serial No. 101-167. 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. 
Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990; Report to Accompany H.R. 2840. 
H. Rept. No. 101-657, Part 2. Sept. 19, 1990. Washington, U.S. Govt. 
Print. Off., 1990. 



CRS-57 The Coastal Environment 



U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 
Subcommittees on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the 
Environment, & and on Oceanography. Hearing on H.R. 2840, Coastal 
Barrier Improvement Act of 1989. 101st Cong., 1st Sess. Aug. 2, 1989. 
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1989. 115 p. Serial No. 101-35 . 

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. 
Subcommittee on Environmental Protection. Hearing on Coastal Barrier 
Resource System. 101st Cong., 1st Sess. Sept. 29, 1989. Washington, U.S. 
Govt. Print. Off., 1990. 143 p. S. Hrg. 101-363 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Coastal Barrier 
Protection Issues in the 101st Congress. CRS Issue Brief IB90047. by 
Malcolm M. Simmons. Washington, archived Jan. 8, 1991. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Coastal Barriers Study Group. Report to 
Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System. Washington, 1988. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. Flood insurance: statistics on the National 
Flood Insurance Program. GAO/RCED-88-155FS. Washington, 1988. 



CRS-58 The Coastal Environment 



COASTAL FLOODING, EROSION, AND SEA LEVEL RISE* 



Issue Definition 

Changing water elevations and storms modify the coastal environment; the 
larger the change or the storm, the greater the modification. These physical 
processes make the coast highly dynamic, and efforts to stabilize it at one 
location often exacerbate problems at adjoining locations. Stabilization efforts 
are substantial because property values are very high along the immediate coast 
and because owners seek to stabilize the shoreline and protect their investments. 
Trying to stabilize the coast is very expensive and usually provides an illusory 
and temporary solution. At issue is the appropriate role of the Federal 
Government, given both the high cost of stabilization efforts and the high 
likelihood for continued change, which will grow with any rise in sea level. 

Background and Analysis 

Hurricanes and other coastal storms have periodically caused billions of 
dollars in damages, especially along the southeastern coast of the United States. 
These storms strike periodically and randomly. As more development is 
concentrated along the coast, smaller or less intense storms cause more damage. 
Also, if sea level rise occurs, then smaller and less intense storms will cause 
more damage because they will be starting from a higher water elevation. A 
main cause of damage is coastal flooding, and one of the most serious forms of 
damage is coast erosion. 

Coastal flooding is addressed through the National Flood Insurance 
Program. This program makes flood insurance available in return for local 
government taking actions through building codes and planning that are 
intended to reduce future costs, in lives and property damage, of major storm 
events. The flood insurance program has been less than fully successful, often 
because local governments have not vigorously enforced the development 
controls needed to make it succeed. The 102d Congress considered amending the 
program to deal with some coastal issues, especially coastal erosion. 

While the flood insurance program was supposed to address coastal erosion, 
participants have never agreed on methodology that would allow them to predict 
the future rates and patterns precisely enough for insurance purposes. Past 
erosion rates do not necessarily continue, and patterns change with the 
configuration and profile of beaches. Rates of change are highest during rare 
severe storm events. Therefore, over the useful life of a structure, say a house, 
there might be only a couple of severe erosion events. 

The Federal Government addresses coastal flooding, coastal erosion, and sea 
level rise on designated undeveloped coastal sites through the Coastal Barrier 



'Prepared by Jeffrey A. Zinn, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-59 The Coastal Environment 



Resources Act of 1982. But this law only applies to sites where there is limited 
pressure to protect the shoreline as it exists today. 

Potential sea level rise, unlike erosion and flooding, is not addressed in 
Federal programs. Many experts predict that the sea level will rise significantly 
over the next century, although the rate and total amount of change are subject 
to considerable debate. Changes will vary from place to place, depending on the 
current pattern of development and the profile of the shoreline. For example, 
a recent study of coastal Massachusetts, using predictions that sea level could 
rise by between .45 feet and 1.57 feet by the year 2025, concluded that the State 
would lose between 3,000 and 10,000 acres with losses in property value of 
between $3 and $10 billion. Political leaders find it hard to address a problem 
when its impacts are in the distant future, and when the technical experts can 
not agree on how to characterize the problem. 

Low, flat jurisdictions will be subject to the greatest risks, and no area is 
considered to be more at risk than coastal Louisiana. Louisiana is losing an 
estimated 60 square miles of coastal wetlands a year, and if the current pattern 
continues, much of three parishes largely could disappear in the next century. 
The problems in Louisiana are attributed to a combination of changing natural 
conditions and human actions that would be exacerbated by any sea level rise. 
Some of the man-induced causes are being addressed, most notably the dredging 
of channels through the marshes to provide oil drilling rigs with access to 
drilling sites. But other factors, such as the loss of sediment caught behind 
dams upstream on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, are more difficult 
to address. In addition, much of the Mississippi delta, which is unconsolidated 
sediment, is sinking under its own weight. 

Solutions to these hazards fall into three categories. One is to retreat from 
the beach, moving future development inland to a point where it is not 
threatened by anticipated water elevations. Some coastal geologists and 
environmentalists support this approach because it would spare today's coast 
from more development, allow natural processes to continue, and reduce the loss 
of property and lives when a storm strikes. The second and third are to 
barricade the beach and to build up the land. These are favored by many in the 
development and engineering businesses. But the barricade-the-beach approach 
can only work if an entire beach system is included, and building up the land 
may only work so long as the ocean does not go around it. There is much 
debate not only on the relative feasibility of these options, but also on costs of 
each in both the short and long terms. Congressional debate comparing and 
contrasting these approaches has been increasingly visible in recent years, and 
is likely to increase so long as sea level rise can be anticipated as a problem. 

Status of the Issue 

There is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding some aspects of this issue, 
and some very specific and immediate needs in other aspects. Consequently, 
Congress has addressed some of the specifics, such as loss of wetlands in 
Louisiana, but it has not addressed the full issue. At the same time, several 



CRS-60 The Coastal Environment 



States, through coastal management and other programs, are starting to 
examine these problems as well. 

One issue that Congress is facing is how much should be done now, when 
there is still considerable controversey and uncertainty among scientists about 
what might happen in the future regarding the rate and pattern of sea level rise. 
A second issue is the related debate over whether some solutions to erosion that 
are currently used, most notably beach nourishment projects, are cost effective 
over the longer run. 

Congress may have to decide in the future and at a general level, whether 
to attempt to stabilize the coast or to retreat. Solutions likely will be a mixture 
of both, and the costs of the solution, whatever the mix, will be high. 

Questions 

1. What options, structural and non-structural, are available to the Federal 
Government to protect life and property in coastal areas from flooding, 
erosion, and sea level rise? What are the limitations and opportunities 
associated with each option? 

2. How does the tight Federal budget situation limit these options? 

3. Recognizing that sea level rise may have an impact at some time in the 
future, what could the Federal Government do now to anticipate the kinds 
of problems that would accompany sea level rise? 

References 

National Research Council, Committee on Coastal Erosion Zone Management. 
Managing Coastal Erosion. Washington, National Academy Press, 1990. 
182p. 

National Research Council, Committee on Engineering Implications of Changes 
in Relative Mean Sea Level. Responding to Changes in Sea Level: 
Engineering Implications. Washington, National Academy Press, 1987. 
148p. 



CRS-61 The Coastal Environment 



COASTAL DEVELOPMENT 
AND THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM* 



Issue Definition 

Coastal development is influenced in part by incentives the Federal 
Government provides. Congress may wish to review the National Flood 
Insurance Program (NFIP) to evaluate whether it is helping to control coastal 
development as intended, and cost effectively, and if not, modify it accordingly. 
A key concern is the ever-increasing Federal (and non-federal) expenditures for 
disaster assistance to coastal communities. 

Background and Analysis 

The desirability of coastal living has produced a migration to the coasts, 
construction of primary and vacation homes, and attendant commercial and 
recreational development. Although Federal programs such as the NFIP have 
imposed stiffer and more expensive requirements for new construction in coastal 
areas, coastal population and development continue to increase. Even in the 
ecologically important undeveloped coastal barrier areas protected through the 
Coastal Barriers Resources Act, some development continues, although the 
benefits from the NFIP and other Federal Government subsidies are unavailable. 

Development is still occurring in coastal areas for a variety of reasons. One 
is that not all eligible communities have chosen to participate in the NFIP; yet, 
while these communities may not receive NFIP coverage, they may still receive 
conventional loans from federally insured or regulated private lending 
institutions. Also, in participating eligible communities, residents who have not 
taken out a policy under the NFIP, but do so at the time of flood damage, may 
apply for and receive disaster assistance. However, if subsequent flood damage 
occurs and the resident has not maintained that policy, then no further disaster 
assistance is available. 

A second reason is that developers may sometimes find non-federal support 
for flood insurance as well as infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and sewage 
treatment. A third is that the Interior Department may not have designated, 
and Congress approved, as many units as they might have for the Coastal 
Barrier Resources System (CBRS). Once in the CBRS, new construction 
normally declines because Federal flood insurance is not available for new or 
substantially improved construction, and Federal subsidies are not available for 
most new and/or improved infrastructure. A fourth is that the Federal 
Government may not have legislated strong enough disincentives/prohibitions; 
some believe that additional legislation such as national minimum erosion 
setback requirements is needed. 



Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-62 The Coastal Environment 



Continued coastal development has resulted in increasing damage and 
higher Federal, as well as non-federal, relief costs in the aftermath of hurricanes 
and storms. More to the point, many of these losses are repetitive: a 1988 
General Accounting Office (GAO) report indicated that repetitive losses 
accounted for 43 percent of total federally insured losses and 53 percent of these 
repetitive losses were for properties in coastal communities. 

NFIP Actuarial Soundness 

The NFIP is now actuarially sound, with premiums just covering damage 
claims, for the average loss year over its 25-year history. However, since no 
major loss year has occurred for the program during the past twenty-four years, 
the average loss year for the period of record may be unrealistically low. The 
NFIP, therefore, may not be actuarially sound for the future if major losses 
occur. Furthermore, if predictions of some scientists are correct, global warming 
may increase sea level, increasing coastal erosion and the probability of higher 
damage claims even if coastal development were stopped today. 

The issue of future actuarial soundness relates to a variety of factors. The 
principal factor is the occurrence of a major loss-year, which the GAO believes 
has not occurred in the history of the program. Another factor is whether 
property owners in coastal communities, in particular those whose structures 
have been damaged repetitively, are paying the appropriate premium for the risk 
involved. A third factor is whether additional requirements should be imposed 
in especially hazardous coastal areas either to deter further new development 
or at least to provide more protection from storm and hurricane damage. A final 
factor is that the mandatory purchase requirement for the NFIP is not being 
enforced. Many property owners obtain flood insurance for the first year of 
their mortgage, but thereafter let it lapse, especially if their property has not 
recently experienced a major flood event. The likely result is lower participation 
and participation skewed towards the "adversely selected" (those at higher risk), 
with higher premiums for those that do participate. 

Removing Structures from High-Risk Coastal Areas 

Some States, and more recently the Federal Government, have started to 
view erosion setback requirements as an important tool for cost management of 
insurance and relief costs, as well as controlling coastal development for 
environmental reasons. The concept is actuarially as well as environmentally 
sound - structures built (or moved) landward of certain high-risk coastal zones 
are less likely to be damaged by coastal storms and erosion, and these structure- 
free erosion zones also will preserve the coastal environment. 

As originally enacted in 1968, the NFIP provided for the demolition or 
relocation of damaged structures. In 1987 Congress passed the Jones/Upton 
Amendment (P.L. 100-242, §544) to the program, which provides incentives for 
either relocating erosion-threatened structures landward of specified erosion 
setbacks or demolishing them. While there are some problems associated with 
the approach taken in 1987 (property owners taking advantage of the more 



CRS-63 The Coastal Environment 



expensive demolition option), its notable result was the beginning of Federal use 
of erosion setbacks as a tool for cost-effective management of the NFIP and 
coastal development. 

While the use of setback requirements through the Jones/Upton approach 
is accomplished through financial incentives, the use of mandatory setback 
requirements is also being used, at least at the State level {e.g., North Carolina 
and South Carolina), but with mixed success: property-owner resistance often 
has resulted in multiple lawsuits claiming the taking of property without just 
compensation. States have responded that a healthy beach/dune system is the 
first and most important line of defense for cost-effective protection of life and 
property in high-risk coastal zones, and that setbacks are essential for this 
approach. These States view other approaches, such as beach nourishment or 
armoring, as costly and less effective. 

Status of the Issue 

Congress may consider whether the NFIP should be evaluated for its long- 
term actuarial soundness. A subsidiary issue is whether owners of coastal 
structures suffering repetitive losses should pay higher premiums, or whether 
the financial incentives to owners of these structures should be changed to 
induce more of the less-costly option of relocation landward of erosion setbacks 
and less of the more-costly option of demolition. Another related issue is the 
enforcement of the mandatory purchase requirements. A final related issue is 
national minimum erosion setback requirements. If the predictions of some 
scientists that global warming could lead to increased erosion are correct, these 
issues may become increasingly important, from both the environmental and 
actuarial viewpoints. 

The House addressed these issues in H.R. 62 in the 102nd Congress. 
Legislation in the Senate is expected to be introduced in August 1993. 

Questions 

1. Is the NFIP actuarially sound for the long-term? 

2. Should coastal (and other) structures suffering repetitive losses pay higher 
premiums, and/or should other incentives be provided to remove such 
structures from high-risk zones? 

3. Should erosion setback zones be used as a tool in removing structures from 
the highest risk coastal zones? 

4. How can the mandatory purchase requirements of the NFIP be enforced 
more effectively? 

5. How will predictions of sea level rise, if they prove correct, affect the NFIP, 
in particular the questions posed above? 



CRS-64 The Coastal Environment 



References 

National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Coastal Erosion Zone 
Management. Managing Coastal Erosion through the National Flood 
Insurance Program. Washington, National Academy Press, 1989. 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. National Flood 
Insurance Program Issues. CRS Issue Brief IB93077. by Malcolm M. 
Simmons. Washington, updated regularly. 

U.S. Congress. House. A Descriptive Analysis of Federal Relief, Insurance, and 
Loss Reduction Programs for Natural Hazards. Report prepared by the 
Congressional Research Service for the Committee on Banking, Finance, 
and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Policy Research and Insurance. 102nd 
Cong., 2nd Sess. Committee Print 102-15, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 
Off., 1993. Oct. 15, 1992. 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. 
Subcommittee on Policy Research and Insurance. Hearing on National 
Flood Insurance Program. 101st Cong., 1st Sess. May 3, 4, and 31, 1989. 
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1989. 801 p. Serial No. 101-21. 

- — Hearing on Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. 101st Cong., 2nd Sess. 
Mar. 8, 1990. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1990. 271 p. Serial No. 
101-89. 

— Hearing on Existing Federal Mitigation Provisions. 101st Cong., 2nd Sess. 

June 27, 1990. Washington. U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1990. 184 p. Serial No. 
101-143. 

— Hearing on the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. 101st Cong., 2nd 

Sess. Sept. 11, 1990. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1990. 189 p. 
Serial No. 101-167. 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 
Subcommittees on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the 
Environment, and Oceanography and the Great Lakes. Hearing on Coastal 
Barrier Improvement Act of 1989 (H.R. 2840). 101st Cong., 1st Sess. Aug. 
2, 1989. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1989. 115 p. Serial No. 101- 
35. 

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. 
Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs. Hearing on the Flood 
Insurance, Mitigation, and Erosion Management Act of 1991 (S. 1650). 
102nd Cong., 1st Sess. Sept. 25, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 
1992. S. Hrg. 102-430. 



CRS-65 The Coastal Environment 



U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. 
Subcommittee on Environmental Protection. Hearing on Coastal Barrier 
Resource System. 101st Cong., 1st Sess. Sept. 29, 1989. Washington, U.S. 
Govt. Print. Off., 1989. 143 p. S. Hrg. 101-363. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. Flood Insurance: Statistics on the National 
Flood Insurance Program. GAO/RCED-88-155FS. Washington, April 1988. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. Flood Insurance: Information on the 
Mandatory Purchase Requirement. GAO/T-RCED-92-86. Washington, July 
27, 1992. 



CRS-66 The Coastal Environment 



MANAGING COASTAL AREAS* 



Issue Definition 

The 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) created Federal incentives 
for coastal States and territories to plan and manage their coastal resources 
under several broad guidelines. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce administers the 
programs authorized by the CZMA. The 101st Congress amended the CZMA, 
reauthorizing most existing programs and their funding for the for the next five 
years and created a new initiative-the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control 
Program-to improve coastal water quality through land use management tools 
available through CZMA authority. At issue for Congress is oversight of 
existing programs and the new initiative, which must be coordinated with the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards setting authority. 

Background and Analysis 

Increasing population concentration on the coasts of the United States has 
resulted in greater coastal use for residential, commercial, industrial, and 
recreational purposes. This greater coastal use has resulted in degradation of 
coastal water quality, a decline in coastal wildlife, adverse changes to coastal 
ecosystems, decreasing open space for public use, and shoreline erosion. 

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA; P.L. 92-583) established 
a role for the Federal Government in the management of coastal resources. 
Other Federal programs related to coastal management, and discussed in other 
sections of this briefing book, are coastal barrier protection. Federal flood 
insurance, wetlands policy, water quality, and fisheries management. 

The CZMA has provided financial incentives for the development of State 
coastal zone management (CZM) plans, which the Federal Government must 
approve. Now, 29 of 35 eligible coastal States and territories have federally 
approved CZM plans. Once approved, coastal States and territories then have 
a mechanism for managing coastal development and become eligible for 
additional financial benefits through State administrative grants, the Estuarine 
Research Reserves Program, and interstate grants. One important mechanism 
for managing some types of coastal development is the requirement that Federal 
activities be "consistent" with approved CZM plans. 

The 101st Congress amended the CZMA (§6202 - §6217, P.L. 101-508), 
reauthorizing its programs for another 5 years (FY1991 through FY1995); 
providing incentives for States and territories without approved CZM plans to 
complete the CZM plan approval process; and requiring that States with 
approved CZM plans develop Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs. 



'Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-67 The Coastal Environment 



Also, the legislation established a Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Fund to 
finance a new Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants program for regional and 
interstate projects, demonstration projects, emergency assistance, awards, and 
program development grants. Financing for the CZM Fund will come from the 
repayment by States and territories of $87.5 million in outstanding loans 
transferred to the Fund from the repealed Coastal Energy Impact Program. The 
legislation also established a new "Technical Assistance" program to provide 
Federal technical and management-oriented research necessary to support the 
Enhancement Grants program. Finally, the amendments required that Federal 
OCS oil and gas lease sales would have to be consistent with approved State 
CZM plans (thus overturning a 1984 Supreme Court ruling). 

Coastal Water Quality 

Water quality is now controlled primarily through regulatory programs 
administered by the EPA under the Clean Water Act (CWA). These programs 
have focused primarily on point sources. Many proponents of a program for 
improved coastal water quality maintain that control of nonpoint sources of 
pollution is vital and that the CZMA is an important adjunct to programs under 
the CWA for controlling nonpoint pollution sources. 

The development of a coastal water quality control program was a dilemma 
for the 101st Congress because of the perceived necessity of invoking authorities 
contained in the CWA as well as the CZMA; yet the CZMA was up for 
reauthorization in the 101st Congress, and the Clean Water Act was not (the 
CWA is up for reauthorization in the 103rd Congress). The 101st Congress 
passed legislation (enacted as §6217, P.L. 101-508) that required each State with 
an approved CZM program to develop a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control 
(CNPC) program through its existing §306 authority. States were given 4 years 
to complete the program, which must be implemented through authorities 
contained in both the CWA and CZMA, and submitted for review and approval 
to both the EPA and NOAA. States not submitting an approvable program in 
the designated time could lose some of their State management §306) as well as 
CWA §319 funding on a graduated basis. Significantly, the Congress required 
coastal States to implement the CNPC program using guidance to be developed 
by EPA; and to provide the necessary mechanisms to enforce nonpoint pollution 
management measures. 

Managing Land Uses 

State CZM programs were already employing a wide variety of tools to 
manage land uses within their coastal zones. The 101st Congress required 
additional use of land use management tools, as seen in the requirements for the 
CNPC program: 

• identification of land uses; 

• identification of critical areas; 

• development of coastal land use management measures; 

• provision of technical assistance; 



CRS-68 The Coastal Environment 



• identification/designation of outstanding coastal resource waters; 

• administrative coordination among State agencies and between State 
and local officials; and 

• modification of State coastal zone boundaries. 

Additionally, the legislation created a Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants 
program ("Section 309" program) that also may have implications for the 
management of coastal land uses. This new effort would require the 
Administrator of NOAA to implement a program in each coastal State to 
encourage improvements in its management program in one or more of the 
following eight areas of specified national interest: such as coastal wetlands 
management and protection; natural hazards management; public access; marine 
debris reduction; cumulative and secondary impacts; special management of 
important coastal areas; management of ocean resources; and coastal energy 
development. Finally, Congress created a new Technical Assistance program 
(with authorized appropriations of $10 million per year) to provide the technical 
assistance and management-oriented research necessary to support the 
Enhancement Grants program. 

Consistency Provision 

The CZMA contains provisions that require various activities affecting the 
coastal zone to be "consistent ... to the maximum extent practicable" with a 
State's CZM plan. While almost all consistency determinations have been 
reached with little controversy, the consistency provision as it applies to Federal 
OCS oil and gas leasing activities has created considerable debate. 

Coastal State interests had been concerned that their input into the Federal 
OCS leasing process was inadequately considered and that requiring a lease sale 
to be "consistent" with a State's coastal zone management (CZM) plan, through 
an amendment to the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), would assure 
protection of their interests. The Interior Department and the oil industry, on 
the other hand, argued that a lease sale should not be subject to CZMA 
consistency requirements because it does not directly affect the coastal zone; 
only exploration and development/production activities of the post-lease phase 
do. In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Interior Department/oil 
industry position. In the 101st Congress, §6208 of the FY1991 budget 
reconciliation legislation contained a provision that reversed the 1984 U.S. 
Supreme Court ruling that supported the Interior Department/industry view, 
thus requiring that OCS lease sales be consistent with State CZM plans. 

While Congress addressed its consistency amendment principally to the 
Federal OCS oil and gas leasing program, other consistency issues, such as ocean 
dumping, were also affected. This amendment established a generally applicable 
rule that any Federal agency activity may be subject to the CZMA consistency 
requirement. The conferees dropped earlier provisions identifying specific 
Federal activities (such as ocean dumping) subject to consistency, because they 
did not want to imply that other specific activities not listed would be exempt. 



CRS-69 The Coastal Environment 



Status of the Issue 

The 1990 CZMA Amendments reauthorized existing programs, established 
a new coastal water quality program, and required consistency of all Federal 
activities affecting the coastal zone. Congress at this time may wish to conduct 
oversight hearings on how the new programs created by the 1990 amendments 
are working. Additionally, Congress may wish to observe the coordination of the 
coastal water quahty program between NOAA and the EPA and to consider how 
possible amendments to the Clean Water Act will affect this coordination. 

Questions 

1. How are the newly created enhancement grants (§309) and Technical 
Assistance programs working? How do they relate to the existing 306 State 
grants program? 

2. Will any of the remaining six States which currently do not have an 
approved CZM program proceed to develop one, particularly in light of the 
new program development incentives provided in the 1990 CZMA 
reauthorization? 

3. Are the States proceeding in the development of the new required Coastal 
Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs (CNPCs)? Will Congress pass 
amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) to carry out the CNPCs? How 
well are the NOAA and EPA coastal water quality programs coordinated? 

References 

Godschalk, David R. Implementing Coastal Zone Management: 1972-1990. 
Coastal Management, 20(2). April-June 1992. 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 
Subcommittee on Oceanography, Great Lakes and the Outer Continental 
Shelf. Hearing on Coastal America, a New Initiative Proposed in the 
President's Fiscal Year 1992 Budget. 102d Cong. 1st Sess. May 14, 1991. 
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1991. Serial No. 102-20. 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 
Subcommittee on Oceanography and Great Lakes. Hearing on Coastal 
Zone Management, Part 11. 101st Cong., 2nd Sess. March 22, 1990. 
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1991. Serial No. 101-77. 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 
Subcommittees on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the 
Environment, and Oceanography and Great Lakes. Hearing on the Coastal 
Defense Initiative of 1989. 101st Con., 1st Sess. June 27, 1989. 
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1989. Serial No. 101-26. 



CRS-70 The Coastal Environment 



U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation. 
Hearings on Coastal Pollution. 1st Cong., 2nd Sess. May 9-10, 1990. 
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1991. 

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 
National Ocean Policy Study. Hearing on the Coastal Zone Improvement 
Act of 1989. 101st Cong., 2nd Sess. May 9, 1990. Washington, U.S. Govt. 
Print. Off., 1990. S. Hrg. 101-795. 

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 
National Ocean Policy Study. Hearing on Coastal Zone Management. 
101st Cong., 1st Sess. August 3, 1989. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 
1989. S. Hrg. 101-302. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. 1990 
Amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act: a Summary. 1991. 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Coastal Resource 
Issues in the 101st Congress. CRS Issue Brief IB90073. by Malcolm M. 
Simmons. Washington, archived December 11, 1990. 



CRS-71 Law of the Sea 



U.S. NONPARTICIPATION IN THE 
LAW OF THE SEA PREPABATORY COMMISSION* 



Issue Definition 

The United States actively participated for more than nine years in the 
Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference but, in 1982, voted against 
adoption of the Convention on the Law of the Sea drafted by the Conference. 
The United States did not sign the Convention but did sign the Final Act of the 
Conference, a step that made it eligible to participate as an observer in the work 
of the Preparatory Commission, often referred to as the PrepCom. The United 
States, however, does not participate in the Commission and also withholds that 
portion of its assessed contribution to the U.N. regular budget that would fund 
PrepCom meetings. At issue is whether U.S. nonparticipation in the 
Preparatory Commission is in the best interests for U.S. policy. 

Backgroiind and Analysis 

Resolution I of the Law of the Sea Conference provided for the 
establishment of a Preparatory Commission that would meet after 50 states had 
signed the Convention. Those states that had signed or acceded to the 
Convention could participate fully in the work of the Commission and those 
states that had signed only the Final Act could take part in the deliberations as 
observers but not participate in the taking of decisions. The first session of the 
PrepCom convened in Jamaica in April 1983. Since that time, the Commission 
has met twice a year, either in Jamaica or in New York. Most of the functions 
of the Preparatory Commission relate to the seabed mining portions of the Law 
of the Sea Convention and consist of drafting rules, regulations, and procedures 
under which the institutions established by the Convention will operate. 

The United States opposed and remains opposed to acceptance of the 
Convention as it is presently formulated because of seabed mining provisions in 
Part XI and Annexes EI and IV of the Convention. The executive branch took 
two actions in 1982 to sjonbolize this opposition: 

1) Refused to participate in the work of the PrepCom: The U.S. 
executive branch maintains that the PrepCom "has no authority to 
change the damaging provisions and precedents" in the Convention 
and "for that reason, the United States is not participating in the 
Commission." (Statement by Ronald Reagan, Public Papers of the 
President, 1982, Book U, p. 1652) 



'Prepared by Marjorie Ann Browne, Specialist in International Relations, 
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division. 



CRS-72 Law of the Sea 



2) Withheld the U.S. share of its U.N. regular budget contribution that 
would finance the PrepCom: U.S. officials maintain that the expenses 
of the PrepCom are not expenses of the United Nations and thus to 
finance them through the U.N. regular budget is "an improper 
assessment... that is not legally binding, and adverse to the interests of 
the United States." (White House Fact Sheet on UN Assessments for 
the Seabed Authority and Law of the Sea Preparatory Commission, 
December 30, 1982, p. 2) 

U.S. attitudes and policies toward the United Nations have changed 
significantly since 1982. In addition, the current fashioning of a "new world 
order" in a post-Cold War and post-Persian Gulf era implies a redefining of aims 
and goals for U.S. policy that may alter or reverse past policy positions. A 
strategy that encourages greater use of the United Nations might find the 
option of participation in the PrepCom to be more acceptable. 

Associated with U.S. participation in the work of the Preparatory 
Commission would be a change in the U.S. policy of withholding its pro rata 
share of funding the work of the PrepCom. Current estimates on the amount 
being withheld by the United States for this purpose follow: 



Fiscal Year 1990 (Calendar Year 1989): $900,000 

FY 1991 (CY 1990): $357,000 

FY 1992 (CY 1991): $193,000 



Status of the Issue 

The Preparatory Commission concluded its resumed tenth session in New 
York between August 10-21, 1992. Discussions during the final plenary meeting 
addressed the failure of the PrepCom to facilitate "universal participation" in the 
Convention and the wisdom of further efforts by the PrepCom in the absence 
of wider acceptance of the Convention. The eleventh session of the Commission 
took place in Kingston, Jamaica, March 22-April 2, 1993. 

References 

American Bar Association Section of International Law and Practice/Standing 
Committee on World Order under Law. Report to the House of Delegates: 
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. International lawyer, fall 1990. 24: 
868-871. 

The Law of the Sea: Official Text of the United Nations Convention on the 
Law of the Sea with Annexes and Index; Final Act of the Third United 
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea; Introductory Material on the 
Convention and the Conference. New York, United Nations, 1983. xxxvii, 
224 p. 



CRS-73 Law of the Sea 



United Nations publication sales no. E.83.V.5; LC call number: JX4421 L38 
1983b. 

Oceans Policy News, published by Council on Ocean Law, Washington, D.C. 
See, for example: March-April 1991, Informal consultations hosted by 
the UN Secretary General, p. 3, and U.S. Oceans Policy: Center for 
Ocean Law and Policy Annual Seminar [Issues in Amending Part XI 
of the LOS Convention], p. 4-9; and March 1992: Tenth Session of the 
PrepCom, p. 1-3; The UN, Ocean Affairs, and the SYG's Initiative, p. 
3. [Oceans policy news regularly carries a summary of the meetings 
of the Preparatory Commission.] 

Richardson, Elliot L. Law of the Sea: a Reassessment of U.S. Interests. 
Mediterranean Quarterly, spring 1990. 1(2): 1-13. 

United Nations. Secretary-General. Law of the Sea; Report of the Secretary- 
General. NewYork, United Nations, 1991. 66 p. (United Nations. General 
Assembly. [U.N. document] A/46/724). This report, issued annually in the 
late fall, is divided into two parts: Developments relating to the U.N. 
Convention on the Law of the Sea; and Activities of the U.N. Office for 
Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. The first part provides information 
on the status of the Convention and on non-convention related 
developments relating to the law of the sea as well as a brief summary of 
the work of the Preparatory Commission. 

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. U.S. Participation in 
the Law of the Sea Convention. Hearings, May 1, 1990. Unpublished. 
Statements by Elliot Richardson, Former Special Representative of the 
President for the Law of the Sea Conference; Professor Lewis Alexander, 
Department of Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island; James Silkenat, 
Chairman, ABA Section on International Law and Practice; and James 
Malone, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International 
Environmental and Scientific Affairs. 



CRS-74 Law of the Sea 

THE UNITED STATES AND THE 1982 CONVENTION* 



Issue Definition 

The United States actively participated in the negotiation of the United 
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea but, in 1982, voted against its 
adoption and decided not to sign it. The United States is currently participating 
in U.N.-sponsored consultations aimed at increasing participation in the 
Convention. The issue for the United States is whether changes can be devised 
for the seabed mining provisions of the Convention that would allow for 
successful U.S. accession to the treaty. 

Background and Analysis 

While the Bush Administration viewed the Convention "as a major 
accomplishment in the development of international law of the oceans," it 
believed that the deep seabed mining portions of the Convention are "seriously 
flawed" (statement by Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering to the U.N. General 
Assembly, Nov. 20, 1989). 

U.S. officials cite problems with Part XI and Annexes EI tmd IV of the 
Convention, arguing that it would: 

■ lack guaranteed assured access for qualified future miners; 

• create a system of privileges for the Enterprise that would discriminate 
against private and national miners; 

• fail to give a proportionate voice to those countries most affected by 
decisions in the deep seabed regime; 

• allow for amendments to come into force without the specific consent 
of individual states, a provision that is incompatible with U.S. 
constitutional procedures for incurring treaty obligations; and 

• create inappropriate precedents in its provisions on mandatory 
transfer of technology and potential distribution of benefits to national 
liberation movements. 

Since 1982, the executive branch has taken steps that might be viewed as 
bringing its maritime claims into line with certain other provisions of the 
Convention. The Administration maintains that these U.S. steps, as well as 
those provisions of the Convention, are "reflective of customary international 
law." For example: 



"Prepared by Maijorie Ann Browne, Specialist in International Relations, 
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division. 



CRS-75 Law of the Sea 



• on March 10, 1983, President Reagan established a U.S. Exclusive 
Economic Zone extending 200 nautical miles beyond the coasts; 

• on December 27, 1988, the President extended the U.S. territorial sea 
from 3 to 12 nautical miles; and 

• on September 23, 1989, the United States and the Soviet Union issued 
a Joint Statement to accompany their interpretation of the rules of 
international law governing innocent passage. The two nations agreed 
that they were "guided" by the provisions of the 1982 Convention, 
"which, with respect to traditional uses of the oceans, generally 
constitute international law and practice and balance fairly the 
interests of all States." (Joint Statement, in International Legal 
Materials, November 1989: 1444-1447.) 

Status of the Issue 

Today, current U.S. policy toward the Convention is confronted by a 
number of challenges, brought about by: 1) an increase in pressures for 
universality of participation in the Convention, 2) an improvement in the 
international political climate; and 3) a slow but steady increase in the number 
of ratifications or accessions to the Convention that brings it closer to entry into 
force. 

In 1990, then-U.N. Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar initiated a 
series of informal consultations among an estimated 30 JJ^. member 
representatives aimed at achieving universcd participation in the Convention. 
Then-U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Thomas Pickering 
attended these meetings for the United States. The sixth informal meeting, the 
last one under Perez de Cuellar, was held in December 1991. Secretary-General 
Boutros Boutros-Ghali continued the initiative in 1992, holding the seventh 
informal consultation in June 1992, with representatives from 72 countries 
present. An eighth meeting was held in August 1992. 

These consultations are not negotiations but informal meetings for the 
presentation of views, aimed at producing a better understanding of the issues. 
Many officials have been promoting negotiations aimed at changing either the 
text or the application of provisions in the seabed mining portions of the 
Convention. The United States, however, has not participated in any 
negotiations toward that goal. 

The changes in the international situation, including both the end of the 
Cold War and the growing maturity of many nontdigned nations in the 
multilateral arena, and the search by the Bush Administration for a "new world 
order," may provide an opportunity for renewed consideration of the Law of the 
Sea Convention. For example, the American Bar Association's February 1990 
House of Delegates meeting recommended the establishment by the President, 
in consultation with Congress, of a "special high-level working group within the 
United States government" to determine what changes and clarifications in the 



CRS-76 Law of the Sea 



deep seabed provisions of the Convention would make those sections acceptable 
to the U.S.; what steps should be taken to make any such changes acceptable to 
other countries; and to determine by what procedures such changes "can best be 
introduced into or attached to the Convention." (Statement by James R. 
Silkenat to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on May 1, 1990, p. 5; 
hearings not printed.) 

As of March 1,1992, 49 countries had ratified the Convention and two 
countries had acceded to it, for a total of 51 ratifications and accessions. Entry 
into force takes place one year after the receipt by the U.N. Secretary-General 
of 60 ratifications or accessions. 

The Convention has been ratified by: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, 
Bahamas, Bahrain, Belize, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Cote 
d'lvoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, 
Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, 
Kuwait, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Nigeria, Oman, Paraguay, Philippines, Saint 
Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, 
Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen 
(Democratic Yemen and Yemen have since merged to form the Republic of 
Yemen), Yugoslavia, Zaire, and Zambia. The Convention has been acceded to by: 
Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. 



CRS-77 Mineral and 

Energy Resources 

SEABED HARD MINERALS' 



Issue Definition 

The decision by the Reagan Administration not to sign the Law of the Sea 
(LOS) Convention because of provisions that were "inimical" to the interests of 
the United States with regard to mining the seabed beyond the limits of national 
jurisdiction still raises concern in some communities. In view of the apparent 
near demise of the nascent deep seabed mining industry, the question is raised 
whether the United States should review its position regarding the LOS 
Convention. Aside from seabed mining, the United States supports most of the 
provisions of the Convention. On the other hand, would this revive interest in 
the seabed mining industry? Would it be in the national interest, as an 
alternative source of copper, nickel, cobalt, manganese, and other metals, to 
provide some form of incentives or assistance? Prototype technology has been 
developed to recover ferromanganese nodules containing cobalt, copper, and 
nickel, and other metals from the deep ocean floor, although economic feasibility 
has not been demonstrated. 

Background and Analysis 

With passage of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA) 
of 1980 (P.L. 96-283), Congress established the framework for what was then 
thought to be an interim domestic regime to regulate the activities of U.S. 
nationals and firms who wished to engage in deep seabed nodule mining 
activities in international waters, pending the entry into force for the United 
States of the Law of the Sea (LOS) Convention. Subsequently, in 1982, 
President Reagan announced that the United States would not sign the LOS 
Convention, basing U.S. objections largely upon the seabed mining provisions 
that it contained. Consequently, four seabed mining consortia involving U.S. 
firms applied to NOAA, the lead agency under DSHMRA, for exploration 
licenses. While the licenses have been granted, and sustained through required 
activities and expenditures, the consortia have yet to proceed to the next step 
of appljdng for commercial recovery permits. 

By not being a signatory to the LOS Convention, the United States was 
precluded from a participatory role in the Preparatory Commission, whose 
purpose was to draft rules of procedures to implement the seabed mining regime 
established by the Convention. Some argued that U.S. interests would have 
been better served by participation in the Preparatory Commission. Others 
argued that the seabed mining provisions of the LOS Convention are basically 
inimical to the interests of the United States and that U.S. interests are better 
served by legislation such as DSHMRA and agreements such as the Provisional 



'Prepared by James E. Mielke, Specialist in Marine and Earth Sciences, 
Science Policy Research Division. 



CRS-78 Mineral and 

Energy Resources 



Understanding on Deep Seabed Matters, which the United States has with seven 
other nations who have developed seabed mining technology. 

In March 1993, the Preparatory Commission completed its "provisional final 
report". In the meantime, the UN Secretary-General has held a series of 
informal consulations on concerns with the seabed mining provisions of the LOS 
Convention, and on April 28, 1993, submitted an Information Note outlining 
results to date and suggesting options for putting into effect the results of the 
consultations. On April 27, 1993, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations 
announced that the United States would participate in the current (10th) round 
of informal consultations. Currently, 56 countries have ratified or acceded to 
the LOS Convention of the 60 required for entry into force. 

Questions 

1. Should the United States reconsider ratifying the Law of the Sea 
Convention and seek to move the international community toward more 
acceptable provisions for deep seabed mining? 

2. Is it in the national interest as an alternative source of copper, nickel, 
cobalt, manganese, and other metals to provide some form of support or 
incentives for a domestic seabed mining industry? 

References 

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Marine Minerals: Exploring 
Our New Ocean Frontier. OTA-0-342. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 
July 1987. 347 p. 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Hard Minerals in 
the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone: Resource Assessments and Elxpectations, 
Part I - Sand and Gravel, Placers, and Phosphorite. CRS Report 87-885 
SPR. by James E. Mielke. Washington, Nov. 6, 1987. 50 p. 

— Hard Minerals in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone: Resource Assessments 
and Expectations, Part n - Ferromanganese Nodules, Cobalt-Manganese 
Crusts, and Polymetallic Sulfide Deposits. CRS Report 87-975 SPR. by 
James E. Mielke. Washington, Dec. 15, 1987. 52 p. 



CRS-79 Mineral and 

Energy Resources 

MARINE MINING WITHIN THE U.S. EEZ* 



Issue Definition 

From gravel to gold, hard minerals on the ocean floor are attracting 
commercial interest. For the United States, the marine minerals with potential 
for development include placer deposits of heavy minerals (e.g. gold, platinum, 
chromite, and titanium minerals), sand and gravel, and phosphorite deposits. 
Mining of gold off Nome, Alaska began in 1987, and sand and gravel have been 
dredged from the entrance to New York Harbor as a needed source of 
construction aggregate for the New York market. In addition, prototjrpe 
technology has been developed to recover ferromanganese nodules containing 
cobalt, copper, and nickel, and other metals from the deep ocean floor, although 
economic feasibility is still in the future. 

Background and Analysis 

By proclamation of the President on March 10, 1983, the United States 
claimed sovereign rights and jurisdiction within an Exclusive Economic Zone 
(EEZ) extending 200 nautical miles seaward from the coast of the United States 
and U.S. territories. In joining the majority of coastal nations in declaring a 
200-mile EEZ, the United States is left with the question of establishing a 
minerals management regime for the area. The Department of the Interior 
(DOT) has asserted that the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act is a 
suitable mechanism. Legislation was introduced in the 99th, 100th and 101st 
Congresses that would establish a much different regime. 

The declaration of an Exclusive Economic Zone has given the United States 
a vast new frontier, larger than its onshore territory. The EEZ contains 
important natural resources, but because most of the EEZ has not been 
explored, its resources and their potential are largely undefined. Recently, 
deposits of poljTnetallic sulfides have been discovered in spreading centers such 
as the Gorda Ridge off Oregon and cobalt-manganese nodules and crusts have 
been found on the flanks and tops of seamounts in the Central Pacific. While 
these are years away from being commercially recoverable, they could become 
a major future source of strategic and other minerals important to the U.S. 
economy. 

Legislative authority for managing mineral resources within the EEZ is 
somewhat unclear. Two laws could be brought to apply: the OCS Lands Act 
under which the Department of the Interior has jurisdiction over the leasing of 
minerals on the continental shelf, and the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources 
Act under which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration G^OAA) 
in the Department of Commerce has jurisdiction over the development of 



'Prepared by James E. Mielke, Specialist in Marine and Earth Sciences, 
Science Policy Research Division. 



CRS-80 Mineral and 

Energy Resources 



ferromanganese nodule resources by U.S. citizens operating in international 
waters. While either of these two Acts could be amended to accommodate 
development of mineral resources within the EEZ, each serves best its specific 
purpose. The Department of the Interior holds the view that the OCS Lands 
Act is an adequate vehicle for management of the mineral resources of the EEZ, 
but others point out that many of its provisions, such as competitive bidding, 
were designed for petroleum development by a mature offshore oil industry, and 
are not appropriate for the innovation of deep ocean hard mineral recovery. 
Consequently, legislation has been introduced in previous Congresses to address 
such questions as revenue sharing, State/Federal relationships, appropriate 
managerial procedures and safeguards, and the roles of the Federal agencies, 
particularly the DOI and NOAA. 

Questions 

1. Would management of the seabed mineral resources of the Exclusive 
Economic Zone be better organized under the Department of the Interior 
or the Department of Commerce? 

2. If a new Federal regime for management of resources within the Exclusive 
Economic Zone were created, should coastal States have greater 
participation in development decisions and receive a portion of any 
roytdties? 

References 

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Marine Minerals: Ebcploring 
Our New Ocean Frontier. OTA-0-342. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 
July 1987. 347 p. 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Hard Minerals in 
the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone: Resource Assessments and Expectations, 
Part I - Sand and Gravel, Placers, and Phosphorite. CRS Report 87-885 
SPR. by James E. Mielke. Washington, Nov. 6, 1987. 50 p. 

— Hard Minerals in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone: Resource Assessments 
and Expectations, Part U - Ferromanganese Nodules, Cobalt-Manganese 
Crusts, and Polymetallic Sulfide Deposits. CRS Report 87-975 SPR. by 
James E. Mielke. Washington, Dec. 15, 1987. 52 p. 



CRS-81 Mineral and 

Energy Resources 

OCS LEASING MORATORIA* 



Issue Definition 

In recent yesirs Congress has imposed various one-year leasing moratoria 
for defined areas within certain Outer Continental Shelf leasing regions. The 
imposition of moratoria has occurred because many coastal States and 
environmental groups have convinced Congress that their input into the 
planning process has not been adequately considered in the drive for increased 
offshore oil and gas production, and that leasing tracts in environmentally 
sensitive areas might lead to activities that could cause irreversible damage. 
President Bush issued a 1990 statement on the OCS leasing program, in which 
he indicated that many of the leasing areas that Congress had placed in 
moratoria should be off bounds to leasing until the year 2000. At issue for 
Congress is whether to make the sequential one-year moratoria legislation of the 
past 10 years (which have effectively precluded leasing in all OCS areas except 
the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico) multi-year or permanent moratoria. 

Background and Analysis 

Congress has enacted moratoria through provisions in the Interior 
Department appropriations enactments for the fiscal years 1982 through 1993. 
The specific areas covered by the moratoria have varied from year to year: New 
England (FY84 through FY93), California (FY82 through FY85, FY89 through 
FY93), Eastern Gulf (FY84, FY89 through FY93), Mid-Atlantic (FY83, FY90 
through FY93), South Atlantic (FY93), Alaska's North Aleutian Basin (FY90 
through FY93), and the Pacific Northwest (FY91 through FY93). Generally, 
however, the total acreage placed off bounds to leasing has increased every 
subsequent year: from 736,000 acres in four Northern California basins inFY82, 
to 468.6 million acres off California, the Pacific Northwest, the Atlantic Coast, 
Florida's Gulf Coast, and Alaska's North Aleutian Basin in FY93. 

As reflected in President Clinton's FY1994 budget proposal, the 
Administration's position on OCS leasing is both to continue leasing in areas 
where leasing was occurring previously - that is, in the Central and Western 
Gulf of Mexico, and some Alaskan Basins - and to continue the OCS moratoria 
contained in the FY1993 appropriations legislation. 

The most recent annual moratoria, enacted as part of the FY1993 Interior 
Department appropriations legislation (PX. 102-381), incorporated President 
Bush's recommendations for California, southwestern Florida, the Georges 
Bank, and Washington/Oregon. Additionally, the legislation included moratoria 
in the North Aleutian Basin, a 50-mile wide stretch along the entire Atlantic 
Coast,-and the Eastern Gulf OCS off northwestern Florida. The total acreage 



"Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-82 Mineral and 

Energy Resources 



in the FY1993 moratoria was 468.6 million acres. Multiyear moratoria were 
considered in the comprehensive energy legislation of the previous Congress but 
were dropped in conference. 

Status of the Issue 

TheFY1993 Interior Department appropriations legislation (P.L. 102-381) 
enacted OCS moratoria off California, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the entire 
Atlantic Coast, Alaska's North Aleutian Basin, and Washington/Oregon. The 
FY1994 Interior Department appropriations legislation (H.R. 2520), as reported 
by the House, would continue the FY1993 moratoria for another year. 

In previous years, congressional OCS moratoria have been enacted through 
annual Department of the Interior appropriations legislation. With the 
President's recommended policy of continuing for FY1994 the OCS annual 
moratoria in the PT1993 Interior Department appropriations enactment, it is 
unclear to what extent Congress may pursue enactment of annual or multiyear 
moratoria. In the 102nd Congress, the Senate passed (S. 2166) multiyear 
moratoria (until the year 2000) for OCS areas off California, the North Atlantic, 
New Jersey, Washington/Oregon, and southwest Florida, as well as directed the 
buyback of existing leases off southwest Florida; on the House side, H.R. 776 
would have established multiyear moratoria (until the year 2002) in areas 
currently under annual moratoria, and provided for buyback of leases off North 
Carolina, southwest Florida, and Alaska's North Aleutian Basin after October 
1, 1995. 

Questions 

1. How much acreage Congress may place under moratoria, and will it exceed 
the current 468.6 million acres in the FY1993 legislation? 

2. ^^11 Congress enact multiyear moratoria? 

3. How would enactment of moratoria relate to enactment of OCS coastal 
impact assistance? 

4. How would enactment of moratoria relate to national energy strategy 
legislation and the President's interest in development of domestic natural 
gas? 

References 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 
Subcommittee on Oceanography, Great Lakes and the Outer Continental 
Shelf. Hearing on Outer Continental Shelf Policy Issues that Impact our 
Coastal States and Affect our National Energy Strategy. 102d Cong., 1st 
Sess. Sept. 25, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1991. Serial No. 
. 102-40. 



CRS-83 Mineral and 

Energy Resources 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
Subcommittee on Oceanography, Great Lakes and the Outer Continental 
Shelf. Hearing on Review of the President's Five-Year Plan to Manage 
Future Oil and Gas Development in Our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf 
Region. 102d Cong., 1st Sess. April 11, 1991. Washington, U S Govt 
Print. Off., 1991. Serial No. 102-16. ' 

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearing 
on Legislation Relating to Oil and Gas Leasing on the Outer Continental 
Shelf. 102d Cong., 1st Sess. July 17, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt Print 
Off., 1991. S. Hrg. 102-224 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Outer Continental 
Shelf Leasing and Development: Issues in the 103d Congress. CRS Issue 
Brief IB93037. by Malcolm M. Simmons. Washington, updated regularly. 

Congressional Research Service. OCS Leasing Moratoria: Their Overlap 

with Estimates of Oil and Gas Resources. CRS Report 92-454 ENR. by 
Malcolm M. Simmons. Washington, May 21, 1992. 



CRS-84 Mineral and 

Energy Resources 



OCS COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE* 



Issue Definition 

The Federal Government receives substantial revenues from offshore oil 
and gas development. The principal participants in the debate before Congress 
(environmentalists, industry, coastal communities, States, and the 
Administration) all seem to agree to the desirability of enacting OCS coastal 
impact assistance legislation, although their rationales for such a program, as 
well as how such a program would be structured, still may differ. 

Most coastal States, except those in the central and western Gulf of Mexico, 
have opposed OCS activities off their coasts, mostly because of environmental 
concerns, but also because they do not share the OCS revenues produced (except 
in the case of shared revenues from so-called "Sg" tracts). Coastal impact 
assistance was passed by the House and Senate in their respective 
comprehensive energy bills in the 102nd Congress, but was dropped in 
conference before enactment. 

Background and Analysis 

The Federal Government receives bonuses, rents and royalties from the 
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing program. For most sales, 
prospective lessees make bids - called bonus bids - on a tract (approximately 9 
square miles). The winning bidder is entitled to explore and develop the tract. 
Once acquired, the lessee pays rent on the tract, until the lease expires or is 
relinquished, or development of oil and gas occurs. If oil, gas, or sulphur 
production occurs, the lessee pays royalties on that production. 

OCS revenues are substantial. Table 1 shows these revenues from 1970 
through 1990. OCS revenues were the second largest source of revenue for the 
Federal Government before progressively increasing congressionally mandated 
OCS moratoria, together with declining oil prices, limited OCS leasing and 
development activities. The hi^ year for total OCS receipts was calendar year 
1981, when the Federal Government received $9,966 billion in bonuses, rents, 
and royalties. In calendar year 1991, the Federal Government received $2,794 
billion. 



'Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-85 Mineral and 

Energy Resoiirces 



TABLE 1. Revenues from the Federal OCS Leasing Program, 

Calendar Year 1970 through 1992 

($ in billions) 



Year 


Bonus 


Royalty 


Rent 


Total 


1970 


0.945 


0.285 


0.009 


1.239 


1971 


0.096 


0.352 


0.008 


0.456 


1972 


2.251 


0.366 


0.008 


2.625 


1973 


3.082 


0.404 


0.009 


3.495 


1974 


5.023 


0.562 


0.014 


5.599 


1975 


1.088 


0.618 


0.018 


1.723 


1976 


2.243 


0.702 


0.023 


2.968 


1977 


1.568 


0.921 


0.020 


2.510 


1978 


1.767 


1.152 


0.022 


2.941 


1979 


5.079 


1.517 


0.020 


6.616 


1980 


4.205 


2.139 


0.019 


6.363 


1981 


6.653 


3.291 


0.022 


9.966 


1982 


3.987 


3.817 


0.020 


7.825 


1983 


5.749 


3.459 


0.032 


9.240 


1984 


3.929 


3.968 


0.036 


7.932 


1985 


1.558 


3.643 


0.062 


5.262 


1986 


0.187 


2.565 


0.053 


2.805 


1987 


0.497 


2.372 


0.075 


2.944 


1988 


1.259 


2.095 


0.063 


3.418 


1989 


0.646 


2.190 


0.079 


2.915 


1990 


0,584 


2.704 


0.079 


3.367 


1991 


0.339 


2.376 


0.079 


2.794 


1992 


0.085 


2.561 


0.060 


2.706 


Source: U.S. 


Department 


of the Interior, Minerals 


Management Service, 


"Federal Offshore Statistics: 


1992" (1993). 


See Table 46 





The principal participants in the debate before Congress (environmentalists, 
industry, coastal communities, States, and the Administration) have held varying 
opinions on coastal impact assistance, or at least as to how it should be 
structured. These opinions were most clearly expressed during the debates in 
the 98th Congress. In contrast to the Reagan Administration, the Bush 
Administration supported coastal impact assistance. 

The Bush Administration's favorable view towards revenue sharing, 
expressed in the President's June 1990 statement on Federal OCS leasing 
program, was clearly intended to be an inducement to new OCS leasing and 
development activities. Under the Bush Administration-proposed legislation in 
the 102nd Congress (H.R.4128/S.2175), coastal States and communities would 
receive some royalty revenue-based on a sliding scale beginning at 12.5%-from 



CRS-86 Mineral and 

Energy Resources 

new development, and would have no restrictions placed on their use of these 
revenues. 

Status of the Issue 

A principal consideration regarding OCS coastal impact assistance is how 
it may relate to congressional intent as to OCS moratoria, which have increased 
acreage unavailable for leasing every year since FT1982. To the extent that 
coEistal impact assistance is based on new OCS activities offshore individual 
States, more acreage under moratoria would mean less potential revenue to 
share. It is unclear if, or to what extent, States now opposing OCS development 
through support of moratoria would drop that support if offered a share of the 
revenues. To a large extent, such a change would likely be conditioned on a 
State's careful evaluation (or reevaluation) of both the potential spill risk and 
the interaction between petroleum and other coastal industries; and to a lesser 
extent, it would likely be conditioned by a State's current fiscal situation. 

A second consideration is congressional intent as to a national energy 
strategy, and the extent that such a strategy would target the OCS as a source 
for additional domestic oil and gas production, and the extent to which coastal 
impact assistance would be viewed as an incentive for this production. 

So far in the 103rd Congress, no OCS coastal impact assistance legislation 
has been introduced. In the 102nd Congress, the comprehensive energy 
legislation (S. 2166) passed by the Senate contained provisions for two coastal 
impact assistance funds: non-federal revenues in the first were based on a 
sliding scale beginning at 12.5% of new royalties; non-federal revenues for the 
second were based on 4% of the previous year's royedty revenue. On the House 
side, H.R. 776 would have established a coastal impact assistance fund comprised 
of 4% of the average annual OCS revenues from the previous three fiscal years 
and provided for an annual 5% increase of revenues deposited into the fund. 

Questions 

1. How does OCS coastal impact assistance relate to congressional intent on 
OCS moratoria. Would States now opposing OCS development through 
their support of moratoria drop that support if offered a share of the 
revenues? 

2. To what extent would a State's support of OCS coastal impact assistance 
be related to perception of the potential spill risk and the interaction 
between petroleum and other coastal industries? 

3. To what extent would a State's support of OCS coastal impact assistance 
be related to that State's current fiscal situation? 



CRS-87 Mineral and 

Energy Resources 



4. How is OCS coastal impact assistance related to future national energy 
strategy legislation? Would such legislation target the OCS as a source for 
additional domestic oil and gas production, and to what extent would 
coastal impact assistance would be viewed as an incentive for this 
production? 

References 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 
Subcommittee on Oceanography, Great Lakes and the Outer Continental 
Shelf. Hearing on Outer Continental Shelf Policy Issues that Impact our 
Coastal States and Affect our National Energy Strategy. 102d Cong., 1st 
Sess. September 25, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1991. 
Serial No. 102-40. 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 
Subcommittee on Oceanography, Great Lakes and the Outer Continental 
Shelf. Hearing on Review of the President's Five- Year Plan to Manage 
Future Oil and Gas Development in Our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf 
Region. 102d Cong., 1st Sess. April 11, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt. 
Print. Off., 1991. Serial No. 102-16. 

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearing 
on Legislation Relating to Oil and Gas Leasing on the Outer Continental 
Shelf. 102nd Cong., 1st Sess. July 17, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 
Off., 1991. S. Hrg. 102-224. 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Outer Continental 
Shelf Leasing and Development: Issues in the 102d Congress. CRS Issue 
Brief IB91063. by Malcolm M. Simmons. Washington, updated regularly. 

OCS Revenue Sharing. CRS Report 91-182 ENR. by Malcolm M. Simmons. 

Washington, February 15, 1991. 

Comparison of Ten Coastal Impact Assistance Bills. General Memorandum 

by Malcolm M. Simmons. Washington, May 8, 1992. 



CRS-88 Mineral and 

Energy Resources 



OCS 5-YEAR LEASING PROGRAM* 



Issue Definition 

The five-year OCS leasing plan for the years mid-1992 through mid-1997 
has fewer sales than the previous plan, and avoids leasing in most, but not all, 
arefiis where Congress has imposed moratoria. It is unclear how the proposed 
plan will relate to congressional consideration of OCS development as an 
element of a national energy strategy, or OCS coastal impact assistance as an 
incentive for OCS development. In looking at these variables, the issue for 
Congress is how to balance development of OCS oil and gas resources with 
environmental protection. 

Background and Analysis 

The principal authority for OCS oil and gas development is the OCS Lands 
Act of 1953, as amended. Important amendments in 1978 provided for balancing 
between expedited exploration and development and protection of the human, 
marine, and coastal environments. A provision (§18) was included to authorize 
the Department of the Interior to conduct a 5-year lease sale planning process. 
Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) has responsibility for the 
Federal OCS leasing process and prepares a 5-year -plan for the upcoming sales 
in the subregions of the four major leasing regions (Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, and 
Alaskan). 

The entire process for developing the current five-year plan took three 
years. The process began in July 1989 when the MMS issued a Federal Register 
notice soliciting information from the States, local governments, industry, and 
the public. The MMS developed its proposed final plan from the information 
received through the notice. 

The MMS released its first draft of the proposed five-year leasing plan in 
February 1991. After a 60-day comment period, the MMS reviewed the 
comments and modified the proposed plan. The MMS released the second draft 
plan and its draft EIS on July 31, 1991 for a 90-day comment period. After 
reviewing these comments and modifying the second drsift plan, the MMS 
released the draft final plan on May 1, 1992. There followed a 60-day 
congressional notification period, after which the Interior Department approved 
the plan July 1, 1992. 

The new plan has fewer sales (18) than the previous one (originally 37). 
Except in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico, the proposed plan does not 
employ the "areawide approach;" rather, the plan would target leasing to smaller 
areas within planning regions, while deferring certain environmentally sensitive 



'Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-89 Mineral and 

Energy Resources 



areas. Many sales would be limited to a fixed number of tracts: 250 in the only 
mid- and South Atlantic sale in 1996, 200 in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico (north 
of 26 degrees North Latitude) sale in 1995, and 250 in the Cook Inlet sale in 
1994. 

The development of the next 5-year plan (mid-1997 through mid-2002) will 
begin in 1994. The current 5-year plan is being reviewed. 

Status of the Issue 

The only areas of the proposed plan that do not coincide with congressional 
intent as reflected in the FY1991 moratoria, are the Mid- and South Atlantic 
region, and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off northwest Florida. In these areas, 
the plan proposes leasing. 

Congress may wish to conduct oversight hearings on the development of the 
next plan, to evaluate issues such as the plan's relationship to congressional 
intent on moratoria, national energy strategy, and OCS coastal impact 
assistance. Moratoria provisions of one year's duration were contained in the 
FY1993 Interior Department appropriations legislation. Multiyear moratoria 
and coastal impact assistance provisions were contained in the comprehensive 
energy legislation (S. 2166 and H.R. 776) of the 102nd Congress. 

Questions 

1. How does current five-year plan relate to current congressional moratoria? 
How will it address such moratoria? 

2. How does the current five-year plan relate to OCS proposals for coastal 
impact assistance? 

3. What changes will be necessaiy for the next five-year plan, for the years 
mid-1997 through mid-2002? 

Reference 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Outer Continental 
Shelf Leasing and Development: Issues in the 102d Congress. CRS Issue 
Brief IB91063. by Malcolm M. Simmons. Washington, updated regularly. 



CRS-90 Mineral and 

Energy Resources 

EVALUATION OF OCS ENVIRONMENTAL RISK* 



Issue Definition 

One of the key congressional concerns over OCS leasing is environmental 
risk. This concern is largely responsible for the increasing acreage under 
congressional moratoria. In FY1993, 468.6 million acres were under moratoria. 
While Congress has imposed OCS moratoria, it was also responding to the Bush 
Administration's position that development of domestic gas would be an 
important part of its energy and environmental strategy. Any congressional 
resolution of these conflicting developments most likely will involve a 
determination of environmental risk. 

Backgroiind and Analysis 

The risk of an oil spill from domestic OCS oil exploration and development 
activities has declined dramatically since 1970, although it still remains. The 
reasons for this improved environmental record are probably both the success 
of new drilling and production technologies and more stringent environmental 
controls. An example of successful technology is improved blowout preventers. 
Examples of more stringent environmental controls include requirements for 
burial of pipelines, worker training programs, inspection programs, and oil spill 
contingency plans. 

It is widely recognized that the spill risk from domestically produced OCS 
oil, piped to a shore facility, is far less than that for tankered oil both from 
abroad and from domestic onshore sources (the Exxon Valdez spill was Prudhoe 
Bay onshore-produced oil). The volume of oil spilled into U.S. waters is more 
likely to increase the more tankered imported oil is substituted for OCS 
production. 

The spill risk from development of OCS gas is much less th£in the risk for 
OCS oil development. Many undeveloped OCS areas, such as the Baltimore 
Canyon in the Mid-Atlantic OCS, the Georges Bank in the North Atlantic OCS, 
and the Pacific Northwest OCS, are thought to be gas-prone and the risk of 
spills to be minor. 

Public perceptions of OCS-related spill damage do not reflect the improved 
environmental record, possibly because the oil industry in general is blamed for 
oil spill damage whether or not related to a particular activity. The public does 
not appear to distinguish between the oil spill risk from OCS oil development - 
- where it is very low relative to tankered oil - and OCS gas development ~ 
where the risk is almost nonexistent. 



'Prepared by Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 



CRS-91 Mineral and 

Energy Resources 



Environmentalists and other critics of OCS production, particularly with 
regard to pristine areas with few people, maintain that large scale coastal 
infrastructure development (such as refining and attendant industries, and 
transportation) would accompany OCS development and that oil rigs on the 
horizon would ruin ocean views. Proponents of development indicate that, to 
some extent, pipeline technology may make possible the "export" of 
infrastructure development to other areas more amenable to it. To a lesser 
extent, rigs can be made less obtrusive, and, through subsea horizontal drilling, 
provide an extended extraction network that can ultimately require fewer rigs. 

Oil spill and other environmental risk is sometimes difficult to evaluate. 
Equally difficult to determine is whether adequate environmental information 
exists for making leasing decisions. Important sources of environmental 
information are EISs. Other major sources are the studies produced through 
the Department of the Interior's Environmental Studies Program established 
under §20 of the OCSLAA. Still other sources are information from the 
processes under OCSLAA §18 (5-year OCS plan) and §19 (State consultation). 

It is sometimes difficult for an interested party, such as an affected State, 
to review all the sources of OCS environmental information, to review this 
information as a comprehensive whole, and to determine its adequacy for 
making leasing decisions. Review and adequacy determinations are often done 
by an independent agency such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS); it 
has undertaken such reviews for OCS areas off California, south Florida, and 
the Georges Bank; and is currently conducting reviews of three Alaskan OCS 
areas (Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, and Navarin Basin). Congress may request 
the NAS to perform such a review; the most recent reviews have taken at least 
a year to complete. 

Status of the Issue 

Underl3ang the congressional imposition of moratoria is the public concern 
over oil spill risk. Before the possibility of increased OCS production may be 
addressed, it is likely that the public will press for re-examination of the relative 
risk potential of OCS development compared to other hydrocarbon supply 
options. The outcome of such an evaluation could be an important factor in 
congressional consideration of OCS moratoria and the President's interest in the 
development of natural gas. 

Specific questions the 103d Congress may wish to evaluate include the 
different oil spill risks posed by tankered and OCS-produced oil, and how (and 
when) the new oil spill liability law (P.L. 101-380) will affect these different 
risks. Additionally, the Congress may decide to involve the National Academy 
of Sciences in additional independent analyses to determine the adequacy of 
area-specific environmental information on which to base leasing decisions. 



CRS-92 Mineral and 

Energy Resources 



Questions 



1 . To what extent is perception or determination of environmental risk related 
to enactment of moratoria? 

2. To what extent is perception or determination of environmental risk related 
to the development of natural gas? 

3. What are the different oil-spill risks of OCS-produced oil versus tankered 
oil? Will the new oil spill liability law affect these differential risks? 

4. Are there more potential leasing areas where Congress may want the 
National Academy of Sciences, or some other independent organization or 
process, to determine the adequacy of area-specific environmental 
information on which to base leasing decisions? 

References 

National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council. Commission on 
Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources. Board on Environmental 
Studies and Toxicology. The Adequacy of Environmental Information for 
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Decisions: Florida and California. 

National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council. Physical 
Oceanography Panel. Assessment of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf 
Environmental Studies Program: I. Physical Oceanography. Washington, 
July 1990. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. The Offshore 
Environmental Studies Program (1973-1989): a Summary of the Minerals 
Management Service Research Conducted on the U.S. Outer Continental 
Shelf. OCS Report MMS 90-0095. Washington, December 1990. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. Offshore Oil and Gas: Environmental Studies 
Program Meets Most User Needs But Changes Needed. GAO/RCED-88-104. 
Washington, June 1988. 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Outer Continental 
Shelf Leasing and Development: Issues in the 102d Congress. CRS Issue 
Brief IB91063. by Malcolm M. Simmons. Washington, updated regularly. 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Record of Spillage 
Resulting from OCS-Related Activities. General Memorandum, by Malcolm 
M. Simmons. Washington, May 9, 1991. 



CRS-93 Antarctica 



ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
AND MINERAL RESOURCES' 



Issue Definition 

Antarctica, home to penguins, seals, and whales, and long of interest to 
explorers and scientists, has also attracted controversy as a potential source of 
petroleum and other mineral resources, although no recoverable deposits have 
yet been discovered. After seven years of negotiation, on June 2, 1988, in 
Wellington, New Zealand, the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic 
Mineral Resource Activities (also known as CRAMRA or the "Wellington 
Convention") was adopted by consensus of the nations that were Consultative 
Parties (20 at that time) to the Antarctic Treaty. The convention, negotiated 
under the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty, would have established an 
environmentally based regulatory framework for possible future development of 
mineral resources in Antarctica. Almost immediately, however, it came under 
attack by those who feared that any development of mineral resources in 
Antarctica would adversely affect the pristine nature of the continent. 
Consequently, the negotiators representing the Antarctic Treaty Consultative 
Parties (those countries with significant established research interests in 
Antarctica, of which there are now 26) negotiated a new measure that would 
place a ban on mineral resource development in Antarctica and preserve its 
environmental quality. This measure is known as the Protocol on 
Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, with Annexes. It was 
submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent for ratification and was 
approved on October 7, 1992 (Treaty Doc. 102-22). 

Background and Analysis 

The primary purpose of the Anttirctic Treaty is to ensure that "Antarctica 
shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not 
become the scene or object of international discord." The treaty provides for 
freedom of scientific research in Antarctica and promotes international 
cooperation toward that end. Through Consultative Meetings and other 
provisions of the treaty, a growing complex of arrangements for regulating 
activities of nations in the Antarctic has evolved. This complex of sirrangements 
is known as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), the center of which is the treaty 
itself. Other aspects of the ATS include recommendations adopted at 
Consultative Meetings and separate agreements and conventions adopted at 
Special Consultative Meetings. Among the separate agreements and conventions 
that have been adopted are the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of 
Antarctic Fauna and Flora, the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic 
Seeds, and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living 
Resources. CRAMRA was intended to complement these other agreements and 
create a more comprehensive management regime for Antarctica. 



"Prepared by James E. Mielke, Specialist in Marine and Earth Sciences, 
Science Policy Research Division. 



CRS-94 Antarctica 



Even though CRAMRA was intended to establish an environmentally sound 
management regime for mineral resource activities, considerable pressure was 
brought forth by those who opposed any future minerals development. 
Consequently, on October 4, 1991, the Consultative Parties concluded the 
Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty which specifically 
prohibits all activities relating to Antarctic mineral resources, except scientific 
research, with the proviso that this prohibition cannot be amended by less than 
unanimous agreement of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties for at least 
50 years after entry into force of the Protocol. Detailed mandatory rules for 
environmental protection pursuant to the provisions of the Protocol are 
contained in a series of annexes forming an integral part of the Protocol. Any 
modification of the minerals ban would require unanimous consent of the 
Consultative Parties and that an acceptable binding legal regime on Antarctic 
mineral resource activities be in place before the ban could be lifted. 

The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty 
designates Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science and 
commits the contracting parties to the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic 
environment and dependent and associated ecosystems. The protocol establishes 
a Committee for Environmental Protection to provide advice and formulate 
recommendations to the Consultative Parties. The protocol is currently 
accompanied by five annexes (four were adopted with the Protocol and the fifth 
two weeks later) dealing with environmental impact assessment, conservation 
of Antarctic fauna and fiora, waste disposal and management, prevention of 
marine pollution, and area protection and management. Additional annexes may 
be adopted and become effective in accordance with provisions of the Antarctic 
Treaty. 

Questions 

1. Although 50 years seems like a long time, there are still many who would 
not wish to have any future minereils development occur in Antarctica. 
These concerns are often embodied in terms of establishing Antarctica as 
a world park. In such an event, how would the contentious question of 
territorial claims be resolved? 

2. While the issue of mineral development activities in Antarctica is resolved 
for the present, the question of negotiating an acceptable minerals 
management regime for possible future use still remains. Is CRAMRA still 
viable in the future or if not, how might it be improved? 

References 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Antarctica: 
Environmental Protection Issues. CRS Report 89-272 ENR. Summary of 
a CRS workshop, by Susan R. Fletcher. Washington, April 10, 1989. 57 
p. w/app. 



CRS-95 Antarctica 



Environmental Effects of Recent Activities in Antarctica. CRS Report 89- 
439 SPR. by M. Lynne Corn, Marjorie Ann Brovme, Eugene H. Buck, and 
James E. Mielke. Washington, June 1988. 46 p. 

Potential Mineral Resources in Antarctica and the Antarctic Minerals 
Convention. CRS Report 90-72 SPR. by James E. Mielke. Washington 
Feb. 5, 1990. 52 p. 

Antarctica: Environmental Protection and Conservation of Resources. 
CRS Issue Brief IB92108. by James E. Mielke and Marjorie Ann Browne. 
Washington, updated regularly. 



CRS-96 Antarctica 



T HE ANTARCTIC TREATY SYSTEM 
AND THE IMPACT OF UNITED NATIONS DEBATES' 



Issue Definition 

This fall, the United Nations General Assembly will discuss the possibility 
of establishing a U.N.-sponsored station in the Antarctic. The 1991 debate 
marks the ninth year that the Assembly has considered the "Question of 
Antarctica." Since debate began, in 1983, the number of states parties to the 
Antarctic Treaty has increased from 28 to 40. During the same time, the 
Consultative Parties have admitted 10 countries to their number. Since 1984, 
the overall direction of the Assembly's considerations seems to be replacement 
of the regime established in the 1959 Antarctic Treaty with a new structure 
negotiated under U.N. auspices. This chapter discusses the background of U.N. 
debate on the issue and the extent to which U.N. considerations have had an 
impact on the decisions of the Antarctic Consultative Parties. 

Background and Analysis 

The Antarctic Treaty, which entered into force on June 23, 1961, serves as 
the backbone of a system of treaty organizations often referred to as the 
Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). The Treaty establishes a meeting of 
consultations among the "Consultative Parties" to it [the original 12 states party 
to the Treaty plus those invited, by virtue of establishing scientific research 
programs in Antarctica, to participate as consultative parties]. The Antarctic 
Consultative Parties meet every other year to discuss common problems 
associated with their activities in the Antarctic. They have adopted, for 
governmental approval, a total of 199 recommendations, 123 (62 percent) of 
which have entered into force. 

Other components of the ATS include the other treaties negotiated and 
adopted by the Antarctic Consultative Parties. They include the Convention for 
the Conservation of Antarctic Seals and the Convention on the Conservation of 
Antarctic Marine Living Resources. In 1988, the Antarctic Consultative Parties 
negotiated and opened for signature a Convention on the Regulation of 
Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities. This treaty did not enter into force and 
was suspended. A Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Anttirctic Treaty 
was adopted and opened for signature on October 4, 1991 (until October 3, 
1992). Lastly, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research is an active 
participant in the ATS, providing scientific information and reports to the 
Antarctic Consultative Meetinp on a wide variety of issues before the Meetings. 

By the early 1980s, the ATS was being criticized by some as "an exclusive 
club," with participation in the consultative meetings excluding both treaty 
parties who were not consultative parties and international organizations that 



'Prepared by Marjorie Ann Browne, Specialist in International Relations, 
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division. 



CRS-97 Antarctica 



have some expertise on issues discussed at the meetings. Moreover, consultative 
meetings were closed to the public and some reports submitted for discussion at 
the meetings were never released as public documents. These circumstances 
fostered suspicions among those outside the system over the actions of 
consultative parties and raised questions over the accountability of the ATS to 
the larger international community. 

United Nations Considerations 

The U.N. debates began in 1983, at the request of Antigua and Barbuda 
and Malaysia. Spurred by Antarctic Consultative Party negotiations on a 
mineral resource regime, these two countries argued for assurances that 
activities in Antarctica be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole. 
Australia, speaking on behalf of the Consultative Parties, maintained that the 
Antarctic Treaty was open to all nations and had averted international strife 
and territorial disputes over Antarctica. The Assembly called on the U.N. 
Secretariat to prepare a study of all aspects of Antarctica. The resolutions of 
the Assembly in 1983 and 1984 [the resolution took note of the study] were 
adopted by a consensus that included the Antarctic Consultative Parties. 

Since that time, however, the Consultative Parties have not participated in 
the Assembly votes on Antarctica because they were not prepared to accept the 
efforts of those U.N. members who are pressing for fundamental changes in the 
ATS. One Assembly resolution adopted in 1985 would have labelled any 
Taenefits" from Antarctic activities as the "common heritage of mankind." In 
later resolutions, the Assembly urged the Consultative Parties to invite the U.N. 
Secretary-General or his representative to their Consultative meetinp and 
expressed regret that this had not been done. Also, in 1985, Assembly members 
adopted, for the first time, a resolution that called on Consultative Parties to 
exclude "the racist apartheid regime of South Africa" from their meetings. This 
resolution has been repeated each year. 

The major points of the Assembly's 1991 resolution (A/RES/46/41) included 
the following: 

• renewal of the Assembly's request that the Consultative Parties 
deposit information and documents covering all aspects of Antarctica 
with the U.N. Secretary-General; 

• disappointment that the Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection 
was not negotiated with the full participation of the international 
community; 

• support for a permanent ban on prospecting and mining in Antarctica; 
and 

• request that the Secretary-General report annucdly on the state of the 
environment in Antarctica. 



CRS-98 Antarctica 



Consultative Party Response 

A number of decisions have been taken by the Consultative Parties starting 
with their September 1983 meeting to expand participation in the ATS process, 
make information more accessible, and increase the regulatory basis for 
protection of the Antarctic region. They include the following: 

• granting the non-consultative treaty parties observer status at the 
consultative meetings. They do not participate in the decisionmaking 
but receive documentation and, by their presence, might influence the 
decisions; 

• providing the U.N. Secretary-General with a copy of the consultative 
meeting final reports; 

• expanding the substantive comments in the final reports of the 
meetings to include the content of the discussions, not just the texts 
of the adopted recommendations; 

• establishing in each Consultative State Party a national contact point 
charged with information functions; 

• implementing a review procedure for conference and information 
documents of the consultative meetings for the first 12 and future 
meetings and making most documents publicly available; 

• agreeing to a set of guidelines for environmental impact assessments 
related to man's impact on the Antarctic environment; and 

• negotiating the text of a document of comprehensive measures for the 
protection of the Antarctic environment. 

Status of the Issue 

United Nations debate contributed to an opening up of the Antarctic Treaty 
system, with the Consultative Parties responding to criticisms made during the 
first years of discussion. The Consultative Parties have, however, firmly 
maintained that they will not agree to a U,N.-imposed system and have refused 
to participate in any Assembly resolutions that set any constraints on the 
decisions they might take. 

The 17th Antarctic Consultative Meeting took place in Venice, Italy, 
November 9-20, 1992. Twenty-six Consultative Parties currently are acting to 
ratify the Protocol on Environmental Protection and to provide for its 
implementation. Ecuador, France, and Spain have taken such action thus far. 



CRS-99 Antarctica 



Question 

What is an appropriate relationship between the United NationsAJ.N. 
system and the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties/Antarctic Treaty system? 

References 

Antarctic Treaty Special Consultative Meeting on Antarctic Mineral Resources; 
Final Act and Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource 
Activities. International Legal Materials. July 1988. 27(4): 859-900. 

Antarctic Treaty system in world politics. International challenges; newsletter 
from the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, v. 10, no. 1, 1990: whole issue [3-94]. 

Kimball, Lee A. The Antarctic Minerals Convention: Special Report. 
International Institute For Environment and Development (IffiD). 
Washington, July 1988. 36 p. 

— Report on Antarctica, World Resources Institute. Washington, January 
1991. 34 p. 

Klotz, Frank G. America on the ice: Antarctic Policy Issues. National Defense 
University Press. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1990. 345 p. 

National Research Council. Polar Research Board. Antarctic Treaty System, an 
Assessment. Proceedinp of a Workshop held at Beardmore South Field 
Camp, Antarctica, January 7-13, 1985. Washington, National Academy 
Press, 1986. 435 p. 

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Polar Regions Atlas. Washington, 1978. 66 
p. (Available from Antarctic Project, 218 D St. SE, Washington DC, 20003.) 

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Antarctica: 
Environmental Protection Issues. Summary of a CRS research workshop. 
CRS Report 89-272 ENR. by Susan R. Fletcher. Washington, April 10, 
1989. 57p. w/app. 

— Antarctica: Environmental Protection and Conservation of Resources. CRS 

Issue Brief IB92108. by Marjorie Ann Browne and James E. Mielke. 
Washington, updated regularly. 

— Environmental Effects of Recent Activities in Antarctica. CRS Report 

88-439 SPR. by M. Lynne Corn, Marjorie Ann Browne, Eugene H. Buck, 
and James E. Mielke. Washington, June 1988. 46 p.. 

— Potential Mineral Resources in Antarctica and the Antarctic Minerals 

Convention. CRS Report 90-72 SPR. by James E. Mielke. Washington, 
Feb. 5, 1990. 52 p.. 



CRS-100 Antarctica 



U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Polar prospects: a minerals 
treaty for Antarctica. OTA-0-428 Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 
September 1989. 218 p. 

U.S. President (1989-1993 ; Bush). Protocol on environmental protection to the 
Antarctic Treaty; message. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1992. 108 
p. (Treaty doc. 102-22, Senate, 102d Cong., 2d Sess.,) Transmits a copy of 
the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, with 
annexes, done at Madrid October 4, 1991, and an additional annex done at 
Bonn October 17, 1991. 



CRS-101 
APPENDIX A 



AGENDA 21: 

Programme of Action for 
Sustainable Development 



RiO DECLARATION 

on Environment and Development 
Statement of 

FOREST PRINCIPLES 



The final text of agreements 

negotiated by Governments 

at the United Nations Conference on 

Environment and Development (UNCED), 

3-14 June 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 




UNITID NATIONS 



CRS-102 



17 



Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas, 
including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, 
and coastal areas and the protection, rational 
use and development of their living resources 



INTRODUCTION 



needs and ultimately depends on the technology transfer 
and financial resources required and made available to 
them. 



17.1 The manne environment — including the oceans 
and all seas and adjacent coastal areas — forms an 
integrated whole that is an essential component of the 
global life-support system and a positive asset that pre- 
sents opponunities for sustainable development. Interna- 
tional law, as reflected in the provisions of the United 
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea'- " referred to 
in this chapter of Agenda 21, sets forth rights and obli- 
gations of States and provides the international basis 
upon which to pursue the protection and sustainable 
development of the marine and coastal environment and 
its resources. This requires new approaches to marine and 
coastal area management and development, at the na- 
tional, subregional. regional -and global levels, ap- 
proaches that are integrated in content and are precau- 
tionary and anticipatory in ambit, as reflected in the 
following programme areas: 

(a) Integrated management and sustainable develop- 
ment of coastal areas, including exclusive economic 
zones; 

(b) Marine environmental protection; 

(c) Sustainable use and conservation of marine living 
resources of the high seas; 

(d) Sustainable use and conservation of marine living 
resources under national jurisdiction; 

(e) Addressing critical uncertainties for tiie manage- 
ment of the marine environment and climate change; 

(f) Strengthening international, including regional, co- 
operation and coordination; 

(g) Sustainable development of small islands. 

17.2 The implementation by developing countries of 
the activities set forth below shall be commensurate with 
their individual technological and financial capacities 
and priorities in allocating resources for development 



PROGRAMME AREAS 



A) INTEGRATED ^AANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE 
DEVELOPMENT OF COASTAL AND MARINE AREAS, 
INCLUDING EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONES 



BASIS FOR ACTION 

17.3 The coastal area contains diverse and productive 
habitats important for human settlements, development 
and local subsistence. More than half the world's popu- 
lation lives within 60 km of the shorehne, and this could 
rise to three quarters by the year 2020. Many of the 
world's poor are crowded in coastal areas. Coastal re- 
sources are vital for many local communities and in- 
digenous people. The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is 
also an important marine area where the States manage 
the development and conservation of natural resources 
for the benefit of their people. For small island States or 
countries, these are the areas most available for develop- 
ment activities. 

1 7 .4 Despite national, subregional. regional and global 
efforts, current ^proaches to the management of marine 
and coastal resources have not always proved capable of 
achieving sustainable development, and coastal re- 
sources and the coastal environment are being rapidly 
degraded and eroded in many parts of the worid. 



OBJECTIVES 

17.5 Coastal States commit themselves to integrated 



147 



CRS-103 



management and sustainable development of coastal 
areas and the marine environment under their national 
jurisdiction. To this end, it is necessary to, inter alia: 

(a) Provide for an integrated policy and decision-mak- 
ing process, including all involved sectors, to promote 
compatibility and a balance of uses; 

(b) Identify existing and projected uses of coastal areas 
and their interactions; 

(c) Concentrate on well-defined issues concerning 
coastal management; 

(d) Apply preventive and precautionary approaches in 
project planning and implementation, including prior 
assessment and systematic observation of the impacts of 
major projects; 

(e) Promote the development and application of meth- 
ods, such as national resource and environmental ac- 
counting, that reflect changes in value resulting from uses 
of coastal and marine areas, including pollution, marine 
erosion, loss of resources and habitat destruction; 

(f) Provide access, as far as possible, for concerned 
individuals, groups and organizations to relevant infor- 
mation and opponunities for consultation and participa- 
tion in planning and decision-malcing at appropriate 
levels. 



AcnvmES 

A) MANAGEMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES 

17.6 Each coastal State should consider estabhshing, or 
where necessary strengthening, appropriate coordinating 
mechanisms (such as a high-level policy planning body) 
for integrated management and sustainable development 
of coastal and marine areas and their resources, at both 
the local and national levels. Such mechanisms should 
include consultation, as appropriate, with the academic 
and private sectors, non-governmental organizations, 
local communities, resource user groups, and indigenous 
people. Such national coordinating mechanisms could 
provide, inter alia, for. 

(a) Preparation and implementation of land and water 
use and siting policies; 

(b) Implementation of integrated coastal and marine 
management and sustainable development plans and pro- 
grammes at appropriate levels; 

(c) Preparation of coastal profiles identifying critical 
areas, including eroded zones, physical processes, devel- 
opment patterns, user conflicts and specific priorities for 
management; 

(d) Prior environmental impact assessment, systematic 
observation and follow-up of major projects, including tfie 
systematic incorporation of results in decision-making; 

(e) Contingency plans for human induced and natural 



disasters, including likely effects of potential climate 
change and sea-level rise, as well as contingency plans 
for degradation and pollution of anthropogenic origin, 
including spills of oil and other materials; 

(f) Improvement of coastal human settlements, espe- 
cially in housing, drinking water and treatment and dis- 
posal of sewage, solid wastes and industrial effluents; 

(g) Periodic assessment of the impacts of external fac- 
tors and phenomena to ensure that the objectives of 
integrated management and sustainable development of 
coastal areas and the marine environment are met; 

(h) Conservation and restoration of altered critical 
habitats; 

(i) Integration of sectoral programmes on sustainable 
development for settlements, agriculture, tourism, fish- 
ing, ports and industries affecting the coastal area; 
(j) Infrastructure adaptation and alternative employ- 
ment; 

(k) Human resource development and training; 
(1) Public education, awareness and information pro- 
grammes; 

(m) Promoting environmentally sound technology and 
sustainable practices; 

(n) Development and simultaneous implementation of 
environmental quality criteria. 

17.7 Coastal States, with the support of international 
organizations, upon request, should undertake measures 
to maintain biological diversity and productivity of 
marine species and habitats under national jurisdiction. 
Inter alia, these measures might include: surveys of 
marine biodiversity, inventories of endangered species 
and critical coastal and marine habitats; establishment 
and management of protected areas; and support of scien- 
tific research and dissemination of its results. 



B] DATA AND INFORMATION 

17.8 Coastal Stales, where necessary, should improve 
their edacity to collect, analyse, assess and use informa- 
tion for sustainable use of resources, including environ- 
mental impacts of activities affecting the coastal and 
marine areas. Information for management purposes 
should receive priority support in view of the intensity 
and magnitude of the changes occurring in the coastal 
and marine areas. To this end, it is necessary to, inter alia: 

(a) Develop and maintain databases for assessment and 
management of coastal areas and all seas and their re- 
sources; 

(b) Develop socio-economic and environmental indi- 
cators; 

(c) Conduct regular environmental assessment of the 
state of the environment of coastal and marine areas; 



148 



CRS-104 



(d) Prepare and maintain profiles of coastal area re- 
sources, activities, uses, habitats and protected areas 
based on the criteria of sustainable development; 

(e) Exchange information and data. 

17.9 Cooperation with developing countries, and, 
where applicable, subregional and regional mechanisms, 
should be strengthened to improve their capacities to 
achieve the above. 



Cj INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL 
COOPERATION AND COORDINATION 

17.10 The role of international cooperation and coordi- 
nation on a bilateral basis and, where applicable, within 
a subregional, interregional, regional or global frame- 
work, is to support and supplement national efforts of 
coastal States to promote integrated management and 
sustainable development of coastal and marine areas. 

17.11 States should cooperate, as appropriate, in the 
preparation of national guidelines for integrated coastal 
zone management and development, drawing on existing 
experience. A global conference to exchange experience 
in the field could be held before 1994. 



MEANS OF IMPLEMEMTATION 

A) FINANCING AND COST EVALUATION 

17.12 The Conference secretariat has estimated the aver- 
age total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing the 
activities of this programme to be about $6 billion includ- 
ing about $50 million from the international community 
on grant or concessional terms. These are indicative and 
order-of-magnitude estimates only and have not been 
reviewed by Governments. Actual costs and financial 
terms, including any that are non-concessional, will de- 
pend upon, inter alia, the specific strategies and pro- 
grammes Governments decide upon for implemenution. 



Bj SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS 

17.13 States should cooperate in the development of 
necessary coastal systematic observation, research and 
information management systems. They should provide 
access to and transfer environmentally safe technologies 
and methodologies for sustainable development of coast- 
al and marine areas to developing countries. They should 
also develop technologies and endogenous scientific and 
technological capacities. 

17.14 International organizations, whether subregional, 
regional or global, as appropriate, should support coastal 



States, upon request, in these efforts, as indicated above, 
devoting special attention to developing countries. 



CI HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 

17.15 Coastal States should promote and facilitate the 
organization of education and training in integrated 
coastal and marine management and sustainable devel- 
opment for scientists, technologists, managers (including 
community-based managers) and users, leaders, indigen- 
ous peoples, fisherfolk, women and youth, among others. 
Management and development, as well as environmental 
protection concerns and local planning issues, should be 
incorporated in educational curricula and public aware- 
ness campaigns, with due regard to traditional ecological 
knowledge and socio-cultural values. 

17.16 International organizations, whether subregional, 
regional or global, as appropriate, should support coastal 
States, upon request, in the areas indicated above, devot- 
ing special attention to developing countries. 



D) CAPACITY-BUILDING 

17.17 Full cooperation should be extended, upon request, 
to coastal States in their capacity-building efforts and, 
where appropriate, capacity-building should be included 
in bilateral and multilateral development cooperation. 
Coastal States may consider, inter alia: 

(a) Ensuring capacity-building at the local level; 

(b) Consulting on coastal and marine issues with local 
administrations, the business community, the academic 
sector, resource user groups and the general public; 

(c) Coordinating sectoral programmes while building 
capacity; 

(d) Identifying existing and potential capabilities, fa- 
cilities and needs for human resources development and 
scientific and technological infrastructure; 

(e) Developing scientific and technological means and 
research; 

(f) Promoting and facilitating human resource devel- 
opment and education; 

(g) Supporting "centres of excellence" in integrated 
coastal and marine resource management; 

(h) Supporting pilot demonstration programmes and 
projects in integrated coastal and marine management 



B) MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 



BASIS FOR ACTON 

17.18 Degradation of the marine environment can result 



CRS-105 



from a wide range of sources. Land-based sources con- 
tribute 70 per cent of marine pollution, while maritime 
transport and dumping-at-sea activities contribute 
10 per cent each. The contaminants that pose the greatest 
threat to the marine environment are, in variable order of 
importance and depending on differing national or re- 
gional situations, sewage, nutrients, synthetic organic 
compounds, sediments, litter and plastics, metals, radio- 
nuclides, oil/hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hy- 
drocarbons (PAHs). Many of the polluting substances 
originating from land-based sources are of particular 
concern to the marine environment since they exhibit at 
the same lime toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation 
in the food chain. There is currently no global scheme 
to address marine pollution from land-based sources. 

17.19 Degradation of the marine environment can also 
result from a wide range of activities on land. Human 
settlements, land use, construction of coastal infrastruc- 
ture, agriculture, forestry, urban development, tourism 
and industry can affect the marine environment. Coastal 
erosion and siltation are of particular concern. 

17.20 Marine pollution is also caused by shipping and 
sea-based activities. Approximately 600,000 tons of oil 
enter the oceans each year as a result of normal shipping 
operations, accidents and illegal discharges. With respect 
to offshore oil and gas activities, currently machinery 
space discharges ait regulated internationally and six 
regional conventions to control platform discharges have 
been under consideration. The nature and extent of 
environmental impacts from offshore oil exploration and 
production activities generally account for a very small 
proportion of marine pollution. 

17.21 A precautionary and anticipatory rather than a 
reactive approach is necessary to prevent the degradation 
of the marine environment. This requires, inter alia, the 
adoption of precautionary measures, environmental im- 
pact assessments, clean production techniques, recy- 
cling, waste audits and minimization, construction and/or 
improvement of sewage treatment facilities, quality man- 
agement criteria for the proper handling of hazardous 
substances, and a comprehensive approach to damaging 
impacts from air, land and water. Any management 
framework must include the improvement of coastal 
human settlements and the integrated management and 
development of coastal areas. 



degradation of the marine environment so as to maintain 
and improve its life-support and productive capacities. 
To this end, it is necessary to: 

(a) Apply preventive, precautionary and anticipatory 
approaches so as to avoid degradation of the marine 
environment, as well as to reduce the risk of long-term 
or irreversible adverse effects upon it; 

(b) Ensure prior assessment of activities that may have 
significant adverse impacts upon the marine environment; 

(c) Integrate protection of the marine environment into 
relevant general environmental, social and economic 
development policies; 

(d) Develop economic incentives, where appropriate, 
to apply clean technologies and other means consistent 
with the internalization of environmental costs, such as 
the polluter pays principle, so as to avoid degradation of 
the marine environment; 

(e) Improve the living standards of coastal populations, 
particularly in developing countries, so as to contribute 
to reducing the degradation of the coastal and marine 
environment 

17.23 States agree that provision of additional financial 
resources, through appropriate international mecha- 
nisms, as well as access to cleaner technologies and 
relevant research, would be necessary to support action 
by developing countries to implement this commitment. 



OBJECTIVES 

17.22 States, in accordance with the provisions of the 
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on 
protection and preservation of the marine environment, 
commit themselves, in accordance with their policies, 
priorities and resources, to prevent, reduce and control 



ACnvmES 

A) MANAGEMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES 

>■ Prevention, reduction and control of degradation of tfie 
marine environment from land-based activities 

1 7.24 In carrying out their commitment to deal with degra- 
dation of the marine environment from land-based activities. 
States should take action at the national level and, where 
appropriate, at the regional and subregional levels, in concert 
with action to implement programme area A, and should take 
account of the Montreal Guidelines for the Protection of the 
Marine Environment from Land-Based Sources. 

1 7.25 To this end. States, with the support of the relevant 
international environmental, scientific, technical and fi- 
nancial organizations, should cooperate, inter alia, to: 

(a) Consider updating, strengthening and extending the 
Montreal Guidelines, as appropriate; 

(b) Assess the effectiveness of existing regional agree- 
ments and action plans, where appropriate, with a view 
to identifying means of strengthening action, where 
necessary, to prevent, reduce and control marine degra- 
dation caused by land-based activities; 

(c) Initiate and promote the development of new re- 
gional agreements, where appropnate; 



150 



CRS-106 



(d) Develop means of providing guidance on technol- 
ogies to deal with the major types of pollution of the 
marine environment from land-based sources, accordmg 
to the best scientific evidence; 

(e) Develop policy guidance for relevant global fund- 
ing mechanisms; 

(f) Identify additional steps requiring international co- 
operation. 

17.26 The UNEP Governing Council is invited to con- 
vene, as soon as practicable, an intergovernmental meet- 
ing on protection of the marine environment from land- 
based activities. 

17.27 As concerns sewage, priority actions to be con- 
sidered by States may include: 

(a) Incorporating sewage concerns when formulating 
or reviewing coastal development plans, including 
human settlement plans; 

(b) Building and maintaining sewage treatment fa- 
cilities in accordance with national policies and capac- 
ities and international cooperation available; 

(c) Locating coastal outfalls so as to maintain an ac- 
ceptable level of environmental quality and to avoid 
exposing shell fisheries, water intakes and bathing areas 
to pathogens; ~" 

(d) Promoting environmentally sound co-treatments of 
domestic and compatible industrial effluents, with the 
introduction, where practicable, of controls on the entry 
of effluents that are not compatible with the system; 

(e) Promoting primary treatment of municipal sewage 
discharged to rivers, estuaries and the sea, or other solu- 
tions appropriate to specific sites; 

(0 Establishing and improving local, national, sub- 
regional and regional, as necessary, regulatory and moni- 
toring programmes to control effluent discharge, using 
minimum sewage effluent guidehnes and water quahty 
criteria and giving due consideration to the charac- 
teristics of receiving bodies and the volume and type of 
pollutants. 

17.28 As concerns other sources of pollution, priority 
actions to be considered by States may include: 

(a) Establishing or improving, as necessary, regulatory 
and monitoring programmes to control effluent dis- 
charges and emissions, including the development and 
application of control and recycling technologies; 

(b) Promoting risk and environmental impact assess- 
ments to help ensure an acceptable level of environmental 
quality; 

(c) Promoting assessment and cooperation at the re- 
gional level, where appropriate, with respect to the input 
of point source pollutants from new installations; 

(d) Eliminating the emission or discharge of organo- 
halogen compounds that threaten to accumulate to dan- 
gerous levels in the marine environment; 



(e) Reducing the emission or discharge of other syn- 
thetic organic compounds that threaten to accumulate to 
dangerous levels in the marine environment; 

(f) Promoting controls over anthropogenic inputs of 
nitrogen and phosphorus that enter coastal waters where 
such problems as eutrophication threaten the marine 
environment or its resources; 

(g) Cooperating with developing countries, through 
financial and technological support, to maximize the best 
practicable control and reduction of substances and 
wastes that are toxic, persistent or liable to bio-accumu- 
late and to establish environmentally sound land-based 
waste disposal alternatives to sea dumping; 

(h) Cooperating in the development and implementa- 
tion of environmentally sound land-use techniques and 
practices to reduce run-off to water-courses and estuaries 
which would cause pollution or degradation of the marine 
environment; 

(i) Promoting the use of environmentally less harmful 
pesticides and fertilizers and alternative methods for pest 
control, and considering the prohibition of those found 
to be environmentally unsound; 
(j) Adopting new initiatives at national, subregional 
and regional levels for controlling the input of non-point 
source pollutants, which require broad changes in sewage 
and waste management, agricultural practices, mining, 
construction and transportation. 

17.29 As concerns physical destruction of coastal and 
marine areas causing degradation of the marine environ- 
ment, priority actions should include control and preven- 
tion of coastal erosion and siltation due to anthropogenic 
factors related to, inter alia, land-use and construction 
techniques and practices. Watershed management prac- 
tices should be promoted so as to prevent, control and 
reduce degradation of the marine environment. 

>■ Prevention, reduction and control of degradation of the 
marine environment from sea-based activities 

17.30 States, acting individually, bilaterally, regionally 
or multilaterally and within the framework of IMO and 
other relevant international organizations, whether sub- 
regional, regional or global, as appropriate, should assess 
the need for additional measures to address degradation 
of the marine environment: 



A) FROM SHIPPING, BY: 

(i) Supporting wider ratification and implementation of 

relevant shipping conventions and protocols; 

(ii) Facilitating the processes in (i), providing support 

to individual States upon request to help them overcome 

the obstacles identified by them; 



151 



CRS-107 



(iii) Cooperating in monitoring marine pollution from 
ships, especially from illegal discharges (e.g., aenal sur- 
veillance), and enforcing MARPOLdischarge provisions 
more rigorously; 

(iv) Assessing the state of pollution caused by ships in 
particularly sensitive areas identified by IMO and taking 
action to implement applicable measures, where neces- 
sary, within such areas to ensure compliance with gener- 
ally accepted international regulations; 
(v) Taking action to ensure respect of areas designated 
by coastal States, within their exclusive economic zones, 
consistent with international law, in order to protect and 
preserve rare or fragile ecosystems, such as coral reefs 
and mangroves; 

(vi) Considering the adoption of appropriate rules on 
ballast water discharge to prevent the spread of non- 
indigenous organisms; 

(vii) Promoting navigational safety by adequate charting 
of coasts and ship-routing, as appropriate; 
(viii) Assessing the need for stricter international regula- 
tions to further reduce the risk of accidents and pollution 
from cargo ships (including bulk carriers); 
(ix) Encouraging IMO and IAEA to work together to 
complete consideration of a code on the carriage of 
irradiated nuclear fuel in flasks on board ships; 
(x) Revismg and updating the IMO Code of Safety for 
Nuclear Merchant Ships and considering how best to 
implement a revised code; 

(xi) Supporting the ongoing activity within IMO regard- 
ing development of appropriate measures for reducing 
air pollution from ships; 

(xii) Supporting the ongoing activity within IMO re- 
garding the development of an international regime gov- 
erning the transportation of hazardous and noxious sub- 
stances carried by ships and further considering whether the 
compensation funds similar to the ones established under 
the Fund Convention would be appropriate in respect of 
pollution damage caused by substances other than oil; 



B) FROM DUMPING, BY: 

(i) Supporting wider ratification, implementation and 
participation in relevant Conventions on dumping at sea, 
including early conclusion of a future strategy for the 
London Dumping Convention; 
(ii) Encouraging the London Dumping Convention par- 
ties to take appropriate steps to stop ocean dumping and 
incineration of hazardous substances; 



C) FROM OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PLATFORMS, BY: 
(i) Assessing existing regulatory measures to address 
discharges, emissions and safety and assessing the need 
for additional measures; 



D) FROM PORTS, BY: 

(i) Facilitating establishment of port reception facilities 
for the collection of oily and chemical residues and 
garbage from ships, especially in MARPOLspecial areas, 
and promoting the establishment of smaller scale fa- 
cilities in marinas and fishing harbours. 

17.31 IMO and as appropriate, other competent United 
Nations organizations, when requested by the States 
concerned, should assess, where appropriate, the state of 
marine pollution in areas of congested shipping, such as 
heavily used international straits, with a view to ensuring 
compliance with generally accepted international regu- 
lations, particulariy those related to illegal discharges 
from ships, in accordance with the provisions of Part III 
of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

17.32 States should take measures to reduce water pol- 
lution caused by organotin compounds used in anti- 
fouling paints. 

1 7.33 States should consider ratifying the Convention on 
Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, 
which addresses, inter alia, the development of contin- 
gency plans on the national and international level, as 
appropriate, including provision of oil-spill response ma- 
terial and training of personnel, including its possible 
extension to chemical spill response. 

17.34 States should intensify international cooperation 
to strengthen or establish, where necessary, regional 
oil/chemical-spill response centres and/or, as appropriate, 
mechanisms in cooperation with relevant subregional, 
regional or global intergovernmental organizations and. 
where appropriate, industry-based organizations. 



B) DATA AND INFORMATION 

17.35 States should, as appropriate, and in accordance 
with the means at their disposal and with due regard for 
their technical and scientific capacity and resources, 
make systematic observations on the state of the marine 
environment To this end. States should, as appropriate, 
consider. 

(a) Establishing systematic observation systems to 
measure marine environmental quality, including causes 
and effects of marine degradation, as a basis for manage- 
ment; 

(b) Regularly exchanging information on marine deg- 
radation caused by land-based and sea-based activities 
and on actions to prevent, control and reduce such degra- 
dation; 

(c) Supporting and expanding international pro- 
grammes for systematic observations such as the mussel 
watch programme, building on existing facilities with 
special attention to developing countries; 



152 



CRS-108 



(d) Establishing a clearing-house on marine pollution 
control information, including processes and technol- 
ogies to address marine pollution control and to support 
their transfer to developing countries and other countries 
with demonstrated needs; 

(e) Establishing a global profile and database providing 
information on the sources, types, amounts and effects 
of pollutants reaching the marine environment from land- 
based activities in coastal areas and sea-based sources; 

(f) Allocating adequate funding for capacity-building 
and training programmes to ensure the full participation 
of developing countries, in particular, in any international 
scheme under the organs and organizations of the United 
Nations system for the collection, analysis and use of data 
and information. 



MEANS OF IMPLEMENTTATION 

A} FINANCING AND COST EVALUATION 

1 7.36 The Conference secretariat has estimated the aver- 
age total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing the 
activities of this programme to be about $200 million 
from the international community on grant or conces- 
sional terms. These are indicative and order-of-magni- 
tude estimates only and have not been reviewed by 
Governments. Actual costs and financial terms, including 
any that are non-concessional, will depend upon, inter 
alia, the specific strategies and programmes Govern- 
ments decide upon for implementation. 



Bl SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS 

17.37 National, subrcgional and regional action pro- 
grammes will, where appropriate, require technology 
transfer, in conformity with chapter 34, and financial 
resources, particulariy where developing countries are 
concerned, including: 

(a) Assistance to industries in identifying and adopting 
clean production or cost-effective pollution control tech- 
nologies; 

(b) Planning development and application of low-cost 
and low-maintenance sewage installation and treatment 
technologies for developing countries; 

(c) Equipment of laboratories to observe systematically 
human and other impacts on the marine environment; 

(d) Identification of appropriate oil- and chemical-spill 
control materials, including low-cost locally available 
materials and techniques, suitable for pollution emergen- 
cies in developing countries; 

(e) Study of the use of persistent organohalogens that 
are liable to accumulate in the marine environment to 



identify those that cannot be adequately controlled and 
to provide a basis for a decision on a time schedule for 
phasing them out as soon as practicable; 
(f) Establishment of a clearing-house for information 
on marine pollution control, including processes and 
technologies to address marine pollution control, and 
suppon for their transfer to developing and other coun- 
tries with demonstrated needs. 



CI HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 

17.38 States individually or in cooperation with each 
other and with the support of international organizations, 
whether subregional. regional or global, as appropriate, 
should: 

(a) Provide training for critical personnel required for 
the adequate protection of the marine environment as 
identified by training needs' surveys at the national, 
regional or subregional levels; 

(b) Promote the introduction of marine environmental 
protection topics into the curriculum of marine studies 
programmes; 

(c) Estabhsh training courses for oil- and chemical- 
spill response personnel, in cooperation, where appropri- 
ate, with the oil and chemical industries; 

(d) Conduct workshops on environmental aspects of 
port operations and development; 

(e) Strengthen and provide secure financing for new 
and existing specialized international centres of profes- 
sional maritime education; 

(0 Through bilateral and multilateral cooperation, sup- 
pon and supplement the national efforts of developing 
countries as regards human resource development in 
relation to prevention and reduction of degradation of the 
marine environment. 



Dj CAPACITY-BUILDING 

1139 National planning and coordinating bodies should 
be given the capacity and authority to review all land- 
based activities and sources of pollution for their impacts 
on the marine environment and to propose appropriate 
control measures. 

17.40 Research facilities should be strengthened or, 
where jqjpropriate, developed in developing countries for 
systematic observation of marine pollution, environmen- 
tal impact assessment and development of control rec- 
ommendations and should be managed and staffed by 
local experts. 

17.41 Special arrangements will be needed to provide 
adequate financial and technical resources to assist de- 



153 



CRS-109 



veloping countries in preventing and solving problems 
associated with activities that threaten the marine envi- 
ronment. 

17.42 An international funding mechanism should be 
created for the application of appropriate sewage treat- 
ment technologies and building sewage treatment fa- 
cilities, including grants or concessional loans from 
international agencies and appropriate regional funds, 
replenished at least in part on a revolving basis by user 
fees. 

17.43 In carrying out these programme activities, par- 
ticular attention needs to be given to the problems of 
developing countries that would bear an unequal burden 
because of their lack of facilities, expertise or technical 
capacities. 



C) SUSTAINABLE USE AND CONSERVATION OF 
MARINE LIVING RESOURCES OF THE HIGH SEAS 



BASIS FOR ACTION 

17.44 Over the last decade, fisheries on the high seas 
have considerably expanded and currently represent 
approximately 5 percent of total world landings. The 
provisions of the United Nations Convention on the 
I-aw of the Sea on the marine living resources of the 
high seas sets fonh rights and obligations of States with 
respect to conservation and utilization of those re- 
sources. 

17.45 However, management of high seas fisheries, in- 
cluding the adoption, monitoring and enforcement of 
effective conservation measures, is inadequate in many 
areas and some resources arc ovcrutilized. There are 
problems of unregulated fishing, overcapitalization, ex- 
cessive fleet size, vessel reflagging to escape controls, 
insufficiently selective gear, unreliable databases and 
lack of sufficient cooperation between States. Action by 
States whose nationals and vessels fish on the high 
seas, as well as cooperation at the bilateral, sub- 
regional, regional and global levels, is essential par- 
ticulariy for highly migratory species and straddling 
stocks. Such action and cooperation should address 
inadequacies in fishing practices, as well as in biologi- 
cal knowledge, fisheries statistics and improvement of 
systems for handling data. Emphasis should also be on 
multi-species management and other approaches that 
take into account the relationships among species, 
especially in addressing depleted species, but also in 
identifying the potential of underutilized or unutilized 
populations. 



OBJECTIVES 

17.46 States commit themselves to the conservation and 
sustainable use of marine living resources on the high 
seas. To this end, it is necessary to: 

(a) Develop and increase the potential of marine living 
resources to meet human nutritional needs, as well as 
social, economic and development goals; 

(b) Maintain or restore populations of marine species 
at levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield 
as qualified by relevant environmental and economic 
factors, taking into consideration relationships among 
species; 

(c) Promote the development and use of selective fish- 
ing gear and practices that minimize waste in the catch 
of target species and minimize by-catch of non-target 
species; 

(d) Ensure effective monitoring and enforcement with 
respect to fishing activities; 

(e) Protect and restore endangered marine species; 

(f) Preserve habitats and other ecologically sensitive 
areas; 

(g) Promote scientific research with respect to the 
marine living resources in the high seas. 

17.47 Nothing in paragraph 17.46 above restricts the 
right of a State or the competence of an iniemauonal 
organization, as appropriate, to prohibit, limit or regulate 
the exploitation of marine mammals on the high seas 
more strictly than provided for in that paragraph. States 
shall cooperate with a view to the conservation of 
marine mammals and, in the case of cetaceans, shall 
in particular work through the appropriate inter- 
national organizations for their conservation, manage- 
ment and study. 

17.48 The ability of developing countries to fulfil the 
above objectives is dependent upon their capabilities, 
including the financial, scientific and technological 
means at their disposal. Adequate financial, scientific and 
technological cooperation should be provided to support 
action by them to implement these objectives. 



ACTIVITIES 

A) MANAGEMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES 

17.49 States should take effective action, including bilat- 
eral and multilateral cooperation, where appropriate at 
the subregional, regional and global levels, to ensure that 
high seas fisheries are managed in accordance with the 
provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law 
of the Sea. In particular, they should: 
(a) Give full effect to these provisions with regard to 
fisheries populations whose ranges lie both within and 
beyond exclusive economic zones (straddling stocks); 



154 



CRS-110 



(b) Give full effect to these provisions with regard to 
highly migratory species; 

(c) Negotiate, where appropriate, intemalional agree- 
ments for the effective management and conservation of 
fishery stocks; 

(d) Define and identify appropriate management units; 
17.50 States should convene, as soon as possible, an 
intergovernmental conference under United Nations aus- 
pices, taking into account relevant activities at the sub- 
regional, regional and global levels, with a view to 
promoting effective implementation of the provisions of 
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on 
straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. 
The conference, drawing, inter alia, on scientific and 
technical studies by FAO, should identify and assess 
existing problems related to the conservation and man- 
agement of such fish stocks, and consider means of 
improving cooperation on fisheries among States, and 
formulate appropriate recommendations. The work and 
the results of the conference should be fully consistent 
with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on 
the Law of the Sea. in particular the rights and obligations 
of coastal States and States fishing on the high seas. 

17.51 Stales should ensure that fishing activities by ves- 
sels fiying their flags on the high seas take place in a 
manner so as to minimize incidental catches. 

17.52 States should take effective action consistent with 
international law to monitor and control fishing activities 
by vessels flying their flags on the high seas to ensure 
compliance with applicable conservation and manage- 
ment rules, including full, detailed, accurate and timely 
reporting of catches and effort. 

17.53 States should take effective action, consistent with 
international law, to deter reflagging of vessels by their 
nationals as a means of avoiding compliance with applic- 
able conservation and management rales for fishing ac- 
tivities on the high seas. 

17.54 States should prohibit dynamiting, poisoning and 
other comparable destructive fishing practices. 

17.55 States should fully implement General Assembly 
resolution 46/2 15 on large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing. 

17.56 States should take measures to increase the availa- 
bility of marine living resources as human food by reducing 
wastage, post-harvest losses and discards, and improving 
techniques of processing, distribution and transportation. 



the conservation and sustainable use of the manne living 
resources of the high seas; 

(b) Exchange on a regular basis up-to-date data and 
information adequate for fisheries assessment; 

(c) Develop and share analytical and predictive tools, 
such as stock assessment and bioeconomic models; 

(d) Establish or expand appropriate monitoring and 
assessment programmes. 



CI INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL 
COOPERATION AND COORDINATION 

17.58 States, through bilateraJ and multilateral cooper- 
ation and within the framework of subregional and re- 
gional fisheries bodies, as appropriate, and with the 
support of other international intergovernmental agen- 
cies, should assess high seas resource potentials and 
develop profiles of all stocks (target and non-target). • 

17.59 States should, where and as appropriate, ensure 
adequate coordination and cooperation in enclosed and 
semi-enclosed seas and between subregional, regional 
and global intergovernmental fisheries bodies. 

17.60 Effective cooperation within existing subregional, 
regional or global fisheries bodies should be encouraged. 
Where such organizations do not exist. States should, as 
appropriate, cooperate to establish such organizations. 

1 7.6 1 States with an interest in a high seas fishery regulated 
by an existing subregional and/or regional high seas fish- 
eries organization of which they are not members should be 
encouraged to join that organization, where appropriate. 

17.62 States recognize: 

(a) The responsibility of the International Whaling Com- 
mission for the conservation and management of whale 
stocks and the regulation of whaling pursuant to the 1946 
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling; 

(b) The work of the International Whaling Commission 
Scientific Committee in carrying out studies of large 
whales in particular, as well as of other cetaceans; 

(c) The work of other organizations, such as the Inter- 
American Tropical Tuna Commission and the Agreement 
on Small Cetaceans in the Baltic and North Sea under the 
Bonn Convention, in the conservation, management and 
study of cetaceans and other marine mammals. 

17.63 States should cooperate for the conservation, man- 
agement and soidy of cetaceans. 



B; DATA AND INFORMATION 

17.57 States, with the support of international organiza- 
tions, whether subregional, regional or global, as appro- 
priate, should cooperate to: 
(a) Promote enhanced collection of data necessary for 



MEANS OF lAAPLEMENnATlON 

A] FINANCING AND COST EVALUATION 

1 7 .64 The Conference secretariat has estimated the aver- 
age total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing the 



155 



CRS-111 



activities of this programme to be about $1 2 million from 
the international community on grant or concessional 
terms. These are indicative and order-of-magnitude esti- 
mates only and have not been reviewed by Governments. 
Actual costs and financial terms, including any that are 
non-concessional, will depend upon, inter alia, the spe- 
cific strategies and programmes Governments decide 
upon for implementation. 



B] SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS 

17.65 States, with the support of relevant international 
organizations, where necessary, should develop collabo- 
rative technical and research programmes to improve 
understanding of the life cycles and migrations of species 
found on the high seas, including identifying critical areas 
and life stages. 

17.66 States, with the support of relevant international 
organizations, whether subregional, regional or global, 
as appropriate, should: 

(a) Develop databases on the high seas marine living 
resources and fisheries; 

(b) Collect and correlate marine environmental data 
with high seas marine living resources data, including the 
impacts of regional and global changes brought about by 
natural causes and by human activities; 

(c) Cooperate in coordinating research programmes to 
provide the knowledge necessary to manage high seas 
resources. 



CI HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 

1 7.67 Human resource development at the national level 
should be targeted at both development and management 
of high seas resources, including training in high seas 
fishing techniques and in high seas resource assessment, 
strengthening cadres of personnel to deal with high seas 
resource management and conservation and related en- 
vironmental issues, and training observers and inspectors 
to be placed on fishing vessels. 



Dl CAPACITY-BUILDING 

17.68 States, with the support, where appropriate, of 
relevant international organizations, whether sub- 
regional, regional or global, should cooperate to develop 
or upgrade systems and institutional structures for moni- 
toring, control and surveillance, as well as the research 
capacity for assessment of marine living resource popu- 
lations. 



17.69 Special support, including cooperation among 
States, will be needed to enhance the capacities of de- 
veloping countries in the areas of data and information, 
scientific and technological means, and human resource 
development in order to participate effectively in the 
conservation and sustainable utilization of high seas 
marine living resources. 



D) SUSTAINABLE USE AND CONSERVATION OF 
MARINE LIVING RESOURCES UNDER 
NATIONAL JURISDICTION 



BASIS FOR ACTION 

17.70 Marine fisheries yield 80 to 90 million tons offish 
and shellfish per/year, 95 per cent of which is taken from 
waters under national jurisdiction. Yields have increased 
nearly fivefold over the past four decades. The provisions 
of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 
on marine living resources of the exclusive economic 
zone and other areas under national jurisdiction set forth 
rights and obligations of States with respect to conserva- 
tion and utilization of those resources. 

17.71 Marine living resources provide an imponant 
source of protein in many countries and their use is often 
of major importance to local communities and indigenous 
people. Such resources provide food and livelihoods to 
millions of people and, if sustainably utilized, offer in- 
creased potential to meet nutritional and social needs, 
particularly in developing countries. To realize this 
potential requires improved knowledge and identifica- 
tion of marine living resource stocks, particularly of 
underutilized and unutilized stocks and species, use of 
new technologies, better handling and processing fa- 
cilities to avoid wastage, and improved quality and 
training of skilled personnel to manage and conserve 
effectively the marine living resources of the exclusive 
economic zone and other areas under national jurisdic- 
tion. Emphasis should also be on multi-species manage- 
ment and other approaches that take into account the 
relationships among species. 

1 7.72 Fisheries in many areas under national jurisdiction 
face mounting problems, including local overfishing, 
unauthorized incursions by foreign fleets, ecosystem 
degradation, overcapitalization and excessive fleet sizes, 
underevaluation of catch, insufficiently selective gear, 
unreliable databases, and increasing competition be- 
tween artisanal and large-scale fishing, and between 
fishing and other types of activities. 

17.73 Problems extend beyond fisheries. Coral reefs and 
other marine and coastal habitats, such as mangroves and 
estuaries, are among the most highly diverse, integrated 



156 



CRS-112 



and productive of the Earth's ecosystems. They often 
serve important ecological functions, provide coastal 
protection, and are critical resources for food, energy, 
tourism and economic development. In many parts of 
the world, such marine and coastal systems are under 
stress or are threatened from a variety of sources, both 
human and natural. 



OBJECTIVES 

17.74 Coastal States, particularly developing countries 
and States whose economies are overwhelmingly de- 
pendent on the exploitation of the marine living resources 
of their exclusive economic zones, should obtain the full 
social and economic benefits from sustainable utihzation 
of marine living resources within their exclusive eco- 
nomic zones and other areas under national jurisdiction. 

17.75 States commit themselves to the conservation and 
sustainable use of marine living resources under national 
jurisdiction. To this end, it is necessary to: 

(a) Develop and increase the potential of marine living 
resources to meet human nutritional needs, as well as 
social, economic and development goals; 

(b) Take into account traditional knowledge and inter- 
ests of local communities, small-scale anisanal fisheries 
and indigenous people in development and management 
programmes; 

(c) Maintain or restore populations of marine species at 
levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield as 
qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors, 
taking into consideration relationships among species; 

(d) Promote the development and use of selective fish- 
ing gear and practices that minimize waste in the catch 
of target species and minimize by-catch of non-target 
species; 

(e) Protect and restore endangered marine species; 
(0 Preserve rare or fragile ecosystems, as well as habi- 
tats and other ecologically sensitive areas. 

17.76 Nothing in paragraph 17.75 above restricts the 
right of a coastal State or the competence of an inter- 
national organization, as appropriate, to prohibit, limit 
or regulate the exploitation of marine mammals more 
strictly than provided for in that paragraph. States shall 
cooperate with a view to the conservation of marine 
mammals and in the case of cetaceans shall in particular 
work through the appropriate international organizations 
for their conservation, management and study. 

17.77 The ability of developing countries to fulfil the 
above objectives is dependent upon their capabilities, 
including the financial, scientific and technological 
means at their disposal. Adequate financial, scientific 
and technological cooperation should be provided to 
support action by them to implement these objectives. 



AQIVmES 

Aj MANAGEMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES 

17.78 States should ensure that marine living resources 
of the exclusive economic zone and other areas under 
national jurisdiction are conserved and managed in ac- 
cordance with the provisions of the United Nations Con- 
vention on the Law of the Sea. 

17.79 States, in implementing the provisions of the 
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, should 
address the issues of straddling stocks and highly migra- 
tory species, and, taking fully into account the objective 
set out in paragraph 17.74, access to the surplus of 
allowable catches. 

17.80 Coastal States, individually or through bilateral 
and/or multilateral cooperation and with the support, as 
appropriate of international organizations, whether sub- 
regional, regional or global, should inter alia: 

(a) Assess the potential of marine living resources, 
including underutilized or unutilized stocks and species, 
by developing inventories, where necessary, for their 
conservation and sustainable use; 

(b) Implement strategies for the sustainable use of 
marine living resources, taking into account the special 
needs and interests of small-scale anisanal fisheries, local 
communities and indigenous people to meet human nu- 
tritional and other development needs; 

(c) Implement, in particular in developing counnies, 
mechanisms to develop mariculture, aquaculture and 
small-scale, deep-sea and oceanic fisheries within areas 
under national jurisdiction where assessments show that 
marine living resources are potentially available; 

(d) Strengthen their legal and regulatory frameworks, 
where appropriate, including management, enforcement 
and surveillance capabilities, to regulate activities related 
to the above strategies; 

(e) Take measures to increase the availability of marine 
living resources as human food by reducing wastage, 
post-harvest losses and discards, and improving tech- 
niques of processing, distribution and transportation; 

(f) Develop and promote the use of environmentally 
sound technology under criteria compatible with the 
sustainable use of marine living resources, including 
assessment of the environmental impact of major new 
fishery practices; 

(g) Enhance the productivity and utilization of their 
marine living resources for food and income. 

17.81 Coastal States should explore the scope for 
expanding recreational and tourist activities based on 
marine living resources, including those for providing 
alternative sources of income. Such activities should be 
compatible with conservation and sustainable develop- 
ment policies and plans. 



157 



CRS-113 



17.82 Coastal States should suppon the sustainability of 
small-scale artisarial fisheries. To this end, they should, 
as appropriate: 

(a) Integrate small-scale artisanal fisheries develop- 
ment in marine and coastal planning, taking into account 
the interests and, where appropriate, encouraging repre- 
sentation of fishermen, small-scale fisherworkers, 
women, local communities and indigenous people; 

(b) Recognize the rights of small-scale fishworkers and 
the special situation of indigenous people and local com- 
munities, including their rights to utilization and protec- 
tion of their habitats on a sustainable basis; 

(c) Develop systems for the acquisition and recording 
of traditional knowledge concerning marine living re- 
sources and environment and promote the incorporation 
of such knowledge into management systems. 

17.83 Coastal States should ensure that, in the negotia- 
tion and implementation of international agreements on 
the development or conservation of marine living re- 
sources, the interests of local communities and indigen- 
ous people are taken into account, in particular their right 
to subsistence. 

17.84 Coastal States, with the support, as appropriate, of 
international organizations should conduct analyses of 
the potential for aquaculture in marine and coastal areas 
under national jurisdiction and apply appropriate safe- 
guards as to the introduction of new species. 

17.85 States should prohibit dynamiting, poisoning and 
other comparable destructive fishing practices. 

17.86 States should identify marine ecosystems exhibit- 
ing high levels of biodiversity and productivity and other 
critical habitat areas and should provide necessary limi- 
tations on use in these areas, through, inter alia, desig- 
nation of protected areas. Priority should be accorded, 
as appropriate, to: 

(a) Coral reef ecosystems; 

(b) Estuaries; 

(c) Temperate and tropical wetlands, including mangroves; 

(d) Seagrass beds; 

(e) Other spawning and nursery areas. 



B) DATA AND INFORMATION 

1 7.87 States, individually or through bilateral and multi- 
lateral cooperation and with the support, as appropriate, 
of international organizations, whether subregional, re- 
gional or global, should: 

(a) Promote enhanced collection and exchange of data 
necessary for the conservation and sustainable use of the 
marine living resources under national jurisdiction; 

(b) Exchange on a regular basis up-to-date data and 
information necessary for fisheries assessment; 



(c) Develop and share a.'^ialytical and predictive tools, 
such as stock assessment and bioeconomic models; 

(d) Establish or expand appropriate monitoring and 
assessment programmes; 

(e) Complete or update marine biodivenity, marine 
living resource and critical habitat profiles of exclusive 
economic zones and other areas under national jurisdic- 
tion, taking account of changes in the environment 
brought about by natural causes and human activities. 



q INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL 
COOPERATION AND COORDINATION 

17.88 States, through bilateral and multilateral cooper- 
ation, and with the support of relevant United Nations 
and other international organizations, should cooperate 
to: 

(a) Develop financial and technical cooperation to en- 
hance the capacities of developing countries in small- 
scale and oceanic fisheries, as well as in coastal aquacul- 
ture and mariculture; 

(b) Promote the contribution of marine living resources 
to eliminate malnutrition and to achieve food self-suffi- 
ciency in developing countries, inter alia, by minimizing 
post-harvest losses and managing stocks for guaranteed 
sustainable yields; 

(c) Develop agreed criteria for the use of selective 
fishing gear and practices to minimize waste in the catch 
of target species and minimize by-catch of non-target 
species; 

(d) Promote seafood quality, including through na- 
tional quality assurance systems for seafood, in order to 
promote access to markets, improve consumer con- 
fidence and maximize economic returns. 

17.89 States should, where and as appropriate, ensure 
adequate coordination and cooperation in enclosed and 
semi-enclosed seas and between subregional, regional 
and global intergovernmental fisheries bodies. 

17.90 States recognize: 

(a) The responsibility of the International Whaling 
Commission for the conservation and management of 
whale stocks and the regulation of whaling pursuant to 
the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of 
Whaling; 

(b) The work of the International Whaling Commission 
Scientific Committee in carrying out smdies of large 
whales in particular, as well as of other cetaceans; 

(c) The work of other organizations, such as the Inter- 
American Tropical Tuna Commission and the Agreement 
on Small Cetaceans in the Baltic and North Sea under the 
Bonn Convention, in the conservation, management and 
study of cetaceans and other marine mammals. 



158 



CRS-114 



17.91 States should cooperate for the conservation, man- 
agement and study of cetaceans. 



means of implementation 

a; financing and cost evaluation 

17.92 The Conference secretariat has estimated the aver- 
age total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing the 
activities of this programme to be about $6 billion, 
including about $60 million from the international com- 
munity on grant or concessional terms. These are indica- 
tive and order-of-magnitude estimates only and have not 
been reviewed by Governments. Actual costs will depend 
upon, inter alia, the specific strategies and programmes 
Governments decide upon for implementation. 



e; SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS 

17.93 States, with the suppon of relevant intergovern- 
mental organizations, as appropriate, should: 

(a) Provide for the transfer of environmentally sound 
technologies to develop fisheries, aquaculture and mari- 
culuire, particularly to developing countries; 

(b) Accord special attention to mechanisms fortrans- 
ferring resource information and improved fishing and 
aquaculture technologies to fishing communities at the 
local level; 

(c) Promote the study, scientific assessment and use of 
appropriate traditional management systems; 

(d) Consider observing, as appropriate, the FAO/ICES 
Code of Practice for Consideration of Transfer and Intro- 
duction of Marine and Freshwater Organisms; 

(e) Promote scientific research on marine areas of par- 
ticular importance for marine living resources, such as 
areas of high diversity, endemism and productivity and 
migratory stopover points. 



CI HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 

1 7.94 States individually, or through bilateral and multi- 
lateral cooperation and with the support of relevant in- 
ternational organizations, whether subregional, regional 
or global, as appropriate, should encourage and provide 
support for developing countries, inter alia, to: 

(a) Expand multidisciplinary education, training and 
research on marine living resources, particularly in the 
social and economic sciences; 

(b) Create training opportunities at national and re- 
gional levels to support artisanal (including subsistence) 
flsheries, to develop small-scale use of marine living 



resources and to encourage equitable participation of 

local communities, small-scale fish workers, women 'Jid 

indigenous people; 

(c) Introduce topics relating to the importance of 

marine living resources in educational cunicula at all 

levels. 



D) CAPACITY-BUILDING 

17.95 Coastal States, with the support of relevant sub- 
regional, regional and global agencies, where appropri- 
ate, should: 

(a) Develop research capacities for assessment of 
marine living resource populations and monitoring; 

(b) Provide support to local fishing communities, in 
particular those that rely on fishing for subsistence, in- 
digenous people and women, including, as appropriate, 
the technical and financial assistance to organize, main- 
tain, exchange and improve traditional knowledge of 
marine living resources and fishing techniques, and up- 
grade knowledge on marine ecosystems; 

(c) Establish sustainable aquaculture development 
strategies, including environmental management in sup- 
port of rural fish-farming communities; 

(d) Develop and strengthen, where the need may arise, 
institutions capable of implementing the objectives and 
activities related to the conservation and management of 
marine living resources. 

17.96 Special support, including cooperation among 
States, will be needed to enhance the capacities of de- 
veloping countries in the areas of data and information, 
scientific and technological means and human resource 
development in order to enable them to participate effec- 
tively in the conservation and sustainable use of marine 
living resources under national jurisdiction. 

E) ADDRESSING CRITICAL UNCERTAINTIES FOR 
THE ^AANAGEMENT OF THE ^AARINE 
ENVIRONMENT AND CUAAATE CHANGE 



BASIS FOR ACTION 

17.97 The marine environment is vulnerable and sensi- 
tive to climate and atmospheric changes. Rational use 
and development of coastal areas, all seas and marine 
resources, as well as conservation of the marine environ- 
ment, requires the ability to determine tiie present state 
of these systems and to predict future conditions. The 
high degree of uncertainty in present information inhibits 
effective management and limits the ability to make 
predictions and assess environmental change. Systematic 



159 



CRS-115 



collection of data on marine environmental parameters 
will be needed to apply integrated management ap- 
proaches and to predict effects of global climate change 
and of atmospheric phenomena, such as ozone depletion, 
on living marine resources and the marine environment. 
In order to determine the role of the oceans and all seas 
in driving global systems and to predict natural and 
human-induced changes in marine and coastal environ- 
ments, the mechanisms to collect, synthesize and dis- 
seminate information from research and systematic ob- 
servation activities need to be restructured and reinforced 
considerably. 

n .98 There are many uncertainties about climate change 
and particularly about sealevel nse. Small increases in 
sealevel have the potential of causing significant damage 
to small islands and low-lying coasts. Response strategies 
should be based on sound data. A long-term cooperative 
research commitment is needed to provide the data re- 
quired for global climate models and to reduce uncer- 
tainty. Meanwhile, precautionary measures should be 
undertaken to diminish the risks and effects, particularly 
on small islands and on low-lying and coastal areas of 
the world. 

17.99 Increased ultraviolet radiation derived from ozone 
depletion has been reported in some areas of the worid. 
An assessment of its effects in the manne environment 
is needed to reduce uncertainty and to provide a basis for 
action. 



OBJEaiVES 

17.100 States, in accordance with provisions of the 
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on 
marine scientific research, commit themselves to im- 
prove the understanding of the marine environment and 
its role on global processes. To this end, it is necessary 
to: 

(a) Promote scientific research on and systematic 
observation of the marine environment within the 
limits of national jurisdiction and high seas, including 
interactions with atmospheric phenomena, such as 
ozone depletion; 

(b) Promote exchange of data and information resulting 
from scientific research and systematic observation and 
from traditional ecological knowledge and ensure its 
availability to policy makers and the public at the national 
level; 

(c) Cooperate with a view to the development of stand- 
ard inter-calibrated procedures, measuring techniques, 
data storage and management capabilities for scientific 
research on and systematic observation of the marine 
environment. 



AcnvrriES 

Aj MANAGEMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES 

17.101 States should consider, inter alia: 

(a) Coordinating national and regional observation 
programmes for coastal and near-shore phenomena re- 
lated to climate change and for research parameters 
essential for marine and coastal management in all re- 
gions; 

(b) Providing improved forecasts of marine conditions 
for the safety of inhabitants of coastal areas and for the 
efficiency of maritime operations; 

(c) Cooperating with a view to adopting special 
measures to cope with and adapt to potential climate 
change and sealevel rise, including the development of 
globally accepted methodologies for coastal vulnera- 
bility assessment, modelling and response strategies par- 
ticularly for priority areas, such as small islands and 
low-lying and critical coastal areas; 

(d) Identifying ongoing and planned programmes of 
systematic observation of the manne environment, with 
a view to integrating activities and establishing priorities 
to address critical uncertainties for oceans and all seas; 

(e) Initiating a programme of research to determine the 
marine biological effects of increased levels of ultraviolet 
rays due to the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer 
and to evaluate the possible effects. 

17.102 Recognizing the important role that oceans and 
all seas play in attenuating potential climate change, IOC 
and other relevant competent United Nations bodies, with 
the support of countries having the resources and exper- 
tise, should carry out analysis, assessments and system- 
atic observation of the role of oceans as a carbon sink. 



B) DATA AND INFORMATION 

17.103 Slates should consider, inter alia: 

(a) Increasing international cooperation particularly 
with a view to strengthening national scientific and tech- 
nological capabilities for analysing, assessing and pre- 
dicting global climate and environmental change; 

(b) Supporting the role of the IOC in cooperation with 
WMO, UNEP and other international organizations in 
the collection, analysis and distribution of data and in- 
formation from the oceans and all seas, including as 
appropriate, through the Global Ocean Observing Sys- 
tem, giving special attention to the need for IOC to 
develop fully the strategy for providing training and 
technical assistance for developing countries through its 
Training, Education and Mutual Assistance (TEM A) pro- 
gramme; 



160 



CRS-116 



(c) Creating national mullisectoral infonnation bases, 
covering the results of research and systematic observa- 
tion programmes; 

(d) Linking these databases to existing data and infor- 
mation services and mechanisms, such as World Weather 
Watch and Earthwatch; 

(e) Cooperating with a view to the exchange of data 
and information and its storage and archiving through the 
world and regional data cenu^es; 

(f) Cooperating to ensure full participation of develop- 
ing countries, in particular, in any international scheme 
under the organs and organizations of the United Nations 
system for the collection, analysis and use of data and 
information. 



C; INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL 
COOPERATION AND COORDINATION 

17.104 States should consider bilaterally and multilat- 
erally and in cooperation with international organiza- 
tions, whether subregional, regional, interregional or 
global, where appropriate: 

(a) Providing technical cooperation in developing the 
capacity of coastal and island States for marine research 
and systematic observation and for using its results; 

(b) Strengthening existing national institutions andcre- 
ating, where necessary, international analysis and predic- 
tion mechanisms in order to prepare and exchange re- 
gional and global oceanographic analyses and forecasts 
and to provide facilities for international research and 
training at national, subregional and regional levels, 
where applicable. 

17.105 In recognition of the value of Antarctica asan area 
for the conduct of scientific research, in particular re- 
search essential to understanding the global environment, 
States carrying out such research activities in Antarctica 
should, as provided for in Article III of the Antarctic 
Treaty, continue to: 

(a) Ensure that data and infonnation resulting fhim 
such research are freely available to the international 
community; 

(b) Enhance access of the international scientific com- 
munity and specialized agencies of the United Nations 
to such data and information, including the encourage- 
ment of periodic seminars and symposia. 

17.106 States should strengthen high-level inter-agency, 
subregional, regional and global coordination, as appro- 
priate, and review mechanisms to develop and integrate 
systematic observation networics. This would include: 

(a) Review of existing regional and global databases; 

(b) Mechanisms to develop comparable and compatible 
techniques, validate methodologies and measurements. 



organize regular scientific reviews, develop options for 
corrective measures, agree on formats for presentation 
and storage, and communicate the information gathered 
to potential users; 

(c) Systematic observation of coastal habitats and 
sealevel changes, inventories of marine pollution sources 
and reviews of fisheries statistics; 

(d) Organization of periodic assessments of ocean and 
all seas and coastal area status and trends. 

17.107 International cooperation, through relevant or- 
ganizations within the United Nations system, should 
support countries to develop and integrate regional 
systematic long-term observation programmes, when 
applicable, into the Regional Seas Programmes in a 
coordinated fashion to implement, where appropriate, 
subregional, regional and global observing systems 
based on the principle of exchange of data. One aim 
should be the predicting of the effects of climate-related 
emergencies on existing coastal physical and socio- 
economic infrastructure. 

17.108 Based on the results of research on the effects of 
the additional ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth's 
surface, in the fields of human health, agriculture and 
marine environment. States and international organiza- 
tions should consider taking appropriate remedial 
measures. 



MEANS OF IMPLEMENTAHON 

A) FINANCING AND COST EVALUATION 

17.109 The Conference secretariat has estimated the 
average total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing 
the activities of this programme to be about $750 million, 
including about $480 million from the international com- 
munity on grant or concessional terms. These are indica- 
tive and order-of-magnitude estimates only and have not 
been reviewed by Governments. Actual costs and finan- 
cial terms, including any that are non-concessional, will 
depend upon, inter alia, the specific strategies and pro- 
grammes Governments decide upon for implementation. 

17.110 Developed countries should provide the financ- 
ing for the further development and implementation of 
the Global Ocean Observing System. 



B) SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS 

1 7. 11 1 To address critical uncertainties through system- 
atic coastal and marine observations and research, coastal 
States should cooperate in the development of procedures 
that allow for comparable analysis and soundness of data. 
They should also cooperate on a subregional and regional 



161 



CRS-117 



basis, through existing programmes where applicable, 
share infrastructure and expensive and sophisticated 
equipment, develop quality assurance procedures and 
develop human resources jointly. Special attention 
should be given to transfer of scientific and technological 
knowledge and means to support Stales, particularly 
developing countries, in the development of endogenous 
capabilities. 

17.1 12 International organizations should support, when 
requested, coastal countries in implementing research 
projects on the effects of additional ultraviolet radiation. 



C] HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 

17.113 States, individually or through bilateral and multi- 
lateral cooperation and with the support, as appropriate, 
of international organizations whether subregional, re- 
gional or global, should develop and implement compre- 
hensive programmes, particularly in developing coun- 
tries, for a broad and coherent approach to meeting their 
core human resource needs in the marine sciences. 



Dl CAPACITY-BUILDING 

17.114 States should strengthen or establish as necessary, 
national scientific and technological oceanographic com- 
missions or equivalent bodies to develop, support and 
coordinate marine science activities and woric closely 
with intemationa] organizations. 

17.115 Stales should use existing subregional and re- 
gional mechanisms, where applicable, to develop know- 
ledge of the marine environment, exchange information, 
organize systematic observations and assessments, and 
make the most effective use of scientists, facilities and 
equipment. They should also cooperate in the promotion 
of endogenous research capabilities in developing 
countries. 



F) STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL, INCLUDING 
REGIONAL, COOPERATION AND COORDINATION 



BASIS FOR AQION 

17.1 16 It is recognized that the role of international co- 
operation is to suppon and supplement national eiforts. 
Implementation of strategies and activities under the 
programme areas relative to marine and coastal areas and 
seas requires effective institutional arrangements at na- 
tional, subregional, regional and global levels, as appro- 
priate. There are numerous national and international. 



including regional, institutions, both within and outside 
the United Nations system, with competence in marine 
issues, and there is a need to improve coordination and 
strengthen links among them. It is also imporiani to 
ensure that an integrated and mulusectoraj approach to 
marine issues is pursued at all levels. 



OBJECTIVES 

17,117 States commit themselves, in accordance with 
their policies, priorities and resources, to promote institu- 
tional arrangements necessary to suppon the implemen- 
tation of the programme areas in this chapter. To this end, 
it is necessary, as appropriate, to: 

(a) Integrate relevant sectoral activities addressing en- 
vironment and development in marine and coastal areas 
at national, subregional, regional and global levels, as 
appropriate; 

(b) Promote effective information exchange and, 
where appropriate, institutional linkages between bilat- 
eral and multilateral national, regional, subregional and 
interregional instituiions dealing with environment and 
development in marine and coastal areas; 

(c) Promote within the United Nations system, regular 
intergovemmental review and consideration of environ- 
ment and development issues with respect to marine and 
coastal areas; 

(d) Promote the effective operation of coordinating 
mechanisms for the components of the United Nations 
system dealing with issues of environment and develop- 
ment in marine and coastal areas, as well as links with 
relevant international development bodies. 



ACTMTIES 

Aj MANAGEMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES 



GLOBAL 

17.118 The General Assembly should provide for regular 
consideration, within the United Nations system, at the 
intergovemmental level of general marine and coastal 
issues, including environment and development matters, 
and should request [he Secretary-General and executive 
heads of United Nations agencies and organizations to: 

(a) Strengthen coordination and develop improved ar- 
rangements among the relevant United Nations organi- 
zations with major marine and coastal responsibilities, 
including their subregional and regional components; 

(b) Strengthen coordination between those organiza- 
tions and other United Nations organizations, institutions 
and specialized agencies deahng with development, trade 
and other related economic issues, as appropriate; 



162 



CRS-118 



(c) Improve representation of United Nations agencies 
dealing with the marine environment in United Nations 
system-wide coordination efforts; 

(d) Promote, where necessary, greater collaboration 
between the United Nations agencies and subregional 
and regional coastal and marine programmes; 

(e) Develop a centralized system to provide for infor- 
mation on legislation and advice on implementation of 
legal agreements on marine environmental and develop- 
ment issues. 

17.119 States recognize that environmental policies 
should deal with the root causes of environmental degra- 
dation, thus preventing environmental measures from 
resultmg in unnecessary resuictions to trade. Trade pol- 
icy measures for environmental purposes should not 
constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimi- 
nation or a disguised restriction on international trade. 
Unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges 
outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should 
be avoided. Environmental measures addressing interna- 
tional environmental problems should, as far as possible, 
be based on an international consensus. Domestic 
measures targeted to achieve certain environmental ob- 
jectives may need trade measures to render them effec- 
tive. Should trade policy measures be found necessary 
for the enforcement of environmental policies, certain 
principles and rules should apply. These could include, 
inter alia, the pnnciple of non-discrimination; the prin- 
ciple that the trade measure chosen should be the least 
trade-restrictive necessary to achieve the objectives; an 
obligation to ensure transparency in the use of trade 
measures related to the environment and to provide ade- 
quate notification of national regulations; and the need to 
give consideration to the special conditions and develop- 
ment requirements of developing countries as they move 
towards internationally agreed environmental objectives. 



SUBREGIONAl. AND REGIONAL 

17.120 States should consider, as appropriate: 

(a) Strengthening, and extending where necessary, in- 
tergovernmental regional cooperation, the Regional Seas 
Programmes of UNEP, regional and subregional fisheries 
organizations and regional commissions; 

(b) Introduce, where necessary, coordination among 
relevant United Nations and other multilateral organiza- 
tions at the subregional and regional levels, including 
consideration of co-location of their staff; 

(c) Arrange for periodic intraregional consultations; 

(d) Facilitate access to and use of expertise and tech- 
nology through relevant national bodies to subregional 
and regional centres and networks, such as the Regional 
Centres for Marine Technology. 



B) DATA AND INFORMATION 

17.121 States should, where appropriate: 

(a) Promote exchange of information on marine and 
coastal issues; 

(b) Strengthen the capacity of international organiza- 
tions to handle information and support the development 
of national, subregional and regional data and informa- 
tion systems, where appropriate. This could also include 
networks linking countries with comparable environ- 
mental problems; 

(c) Further develop existing international mechanisms 
such as Earthwatch and GESAMP. 



MEANS OF IMPtEMENTATlON 

Aj FINANCING AND COST EVALUATION 

17.122 The Conference secretariat has estimated the 
average total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing 
the activities of this programme to be about $50 million 
from the international community on grant or conces- 
sional terms. These are indicative and order-of-magni- 
tude estimates only and have not been reviewed by 
Governments. Actual costs and financial terms, including 
any that are non-concessional, will depend upon, inter 
alia, the specific strategies and progreunmes Govern- 
ments decide upon for implementation. 



e; SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS, HUMAN 
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND CAPACITY-BUILDING 

17.123 The means of implementation outlined in the 
other programme areas on marine and coastal issues, 
under the sections on scientific and technological means, 
human resource development and capacity-building are 
entirely relevant for this programme area as well. Addi- 
tionally. States should, through international cooperation, 
develop a comprehensive programme for meeting the core 
human resource needs in marine sciences at all levels. 



G) SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SAAALL ISLANDS 



BASIS FOR ACTION 

17.124 Small island developing States, and islands sup- 
porting small communities are a special case both for 
environment and development They are ecologically 
fragile and vulnerable. Their small size, limited re- 
sources, geographic dispersion and isolation from mar- 
kets, place them at a disadvantage economically and 



163 



CRS-119 



prevent economies of scale. For small island developing 
Stales the ocean and coastal environment is of strategic 
importance and constitutes a valuable development re- 
source. 

17.125 Their geographic isolation has resulted in their 
habitation by a comparatively large number of unique 
species of flora and fauna, giving them a very high share 
of global biodiversity. They also have rich and diverse 
cultures with special adaptations to island environments 
and knowledge of the sound management of island 
resources. 

17.126 Small island developing States have all the envi- 
ronmental problems and challenges of the coastal Jtone 
concentrated in a limited land area. They are considered 
extremely vulnerable to global warming and sealevel 
rise, with certain small low-lying islands facing the in- 
creasing threat of the loss of their entire national terri- 
tories. Most tropical islands are also now experiencing 
tlie more immediate impacts of increasing frequency of 
cyclones, storms and hurricanes associated with climate 
change. These are causing major set-backs to their socio- 
economic development 

17.127 Because small island development options are 
limited, there are special challenges to planning for and 
implementing sustainable development. Small island de- 
veloping States will be constrained in meeting these 
challenges without the cooperation and assistance of the 
international community. 



OBJEcrrvES 

17.128 States commit themselves to addressing the prob- 
lems of sustainable development of small island develop- 
ing States. To this end, it is necessary: 

(a) To adopt and implement plans and programmes to 
suppon the sustainable development and utilization of 
their marine and coastal resources, including meeting 
essential human needs, maintaining biodiversity and im- 
proving the quality of life for island people; 

(b) To adopt measures which will enable small island 
developing States to cope effectively, creatively and 
sustainably with environmental change and to mitigate 
impacts and reduce the threats posed to marine and 
coastal resources. 



AcnvmES 

A] MANAGEMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES 

17.129 Small island developing Stales, with the assist- 
ance as appropriate of the international community and 
on the basis of existing woric of national and international 
organizations, should: 



(a) Study the special environmental and developmental 
characteristics of small islands, producing an environ- 
mental profile and inventory of their natural resources, 
critical marine habitats and biodiversity; 

(b) Develop techniques for determining and monitor- 
ing the carrying capacity of small islands under different 
development assumptions and resource constraints; 

(c) Prepare medium- and long-term plans for sustainable 
development that emphasize multiple use of resources, 
integrate environmental considerations with economic and 
sectoral planning and policies, define measures for main- 
taining cultural and biological diversity and conserve en- 
dangered species and critical marine habitats; 

(d) Adapt coastal area management techniques, such 
as planning, siting and environmental impact assess- 
ments, using Geographical Information Systems (GIS). 
suitable to the special characteristics of small islands, 
taking into account the traditional and cultural values of 
indigenous people of island countries; 

(e) Review the existing institutional arrangements and 
identify and undertake appropriate institutional reforms 
essential to the effective implementation of sustainable 
development plans, including intersectoral coordination 
and community participation in the planning process; 
(0 Implement sustainable development plans, includ- 
ing the review and modification of existing unsustainable 
policies and practices; 

(g) Based on precautionary and anticipatory ap- 
proaches, design and implement rational response 
strategies to address the environmental, social and eco- 
nomic impacts of climate change and sealevel rise, and 
prepare appropriate contingency plans; 
(h) Promote environmentally sound technology for 
sustainable development within small island developing 
States and identify technologies that should be excluded 
because of their threats to essential island ecosystems. 



Bl DATA AND INFORMATION 

17.130 Additional information on the geographic, envi- 
ronmental, cultural and socio-economic characteristics 
of islands should be compiled and assessed to assist in the 
planning process. Existing island databases should be ex- 
panded and geographic information systems developed and 
adapted to suit the special characteristics of islands. 



C; INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL 
COOPERATION AND COORDINATION 

17.131 Small island developing States, with the support, 
as appropriate, of international organizations, whether 



164 



CRS-120 



subregional, regional or global, should develop and 
strengthen inter-island, regional and interregional co- 
operation and information exchange, including periodic 
regional and global meetings on sustainable development 
of small island developing States with the first global 
conference on the sustainable development of small is- 
land developing States, to be held in 1993. 
17.132 International organizations, whethersubregional, 
regional or global, must recognize the special develop- 
ment requirements of small island developing States and 
give adequate priority in the provision of assistance, 
particularly with respect to the development and im- 
plementation of sustainable development plans. 



MEANS OF IMPLEMENTTATION 

Aj FINANCING AND COST EVALUATION 

17.133 The Conference secretariat has estimated the 
average total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing 
the activities of this programme to be about $ 1 30 million, 
including about $50 million from the international com- 
munity on grant or concessional terms. These are indica- 
tive and order-of-magnitude estimates only and have not 
been reviewed by Governments. Actual costs and finan- 
cial temis, including any that are non-concessional, will 
depend upon, inter alia, the specific strategies and pro- 
grammes Governments decide upon for implementation. 



be modified to meet these needs and special training 
programmes developed in integrated island management 
and development. Local planning should be integrated 
in educational curricula of all levels and public awareness 
campaigns developed with the assistance of non-govern- 
mental organizations and indigenous coastal populations. 



Dj CAPACITY-BUILDING 

17.136 The total capacity of small island developing 
States will always be limited. Existing capacity must 
therefore be restructured to meet efficiently the immedi- 
ate needs for sustainable development and integrated 
management. At the same time, adequate and appropri- 
ate assistance from the international community must be 
directed at strengthening the full range of human re- 
sources needed on a continuous basis to implement sus- 
tainable development plans. 

1 7. 1 37 New technologies that can increase the output and 
range of capability of the limited human resources should 
be employed to increase the capacity of very small 
populations to meet their needs. The development and 
application of traditional knowledge to improve the ca- 
pacity of countries to implement sustainable develop- 
ment should be fostered. 



B] SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MEANS 

17.134 Centres for the development and diffusion of 
scientific information and advice on technical means and 
technologies appropriate to small island developing 
States, especially with reference to the management of 
the coastal zone, the exclusive economic zone and marine 
resources, should be established or strengthened, as ap- 
propriate, on a regional basis. 



C; HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 

17.135 Since populations of smaU island developing 
States cannot maintain all necessary specializations, 
training for integrated coastal management and develop- 
ment should aim to produce cadres of managers or scien- 
tists, engineers and coastal planners able to integrate the 
many factors that need to be considered in integrated 
coastal management. Resource users should be prepared 
to execute both management and protection functions 
and to apply the polluter pays principle and support the 
training of their personnel. Educational systems should 



References to the United Nations Convention on the Low of the 
Seo in this chapter of Agenda 21 do not prejudice the position of 
any State with respect to signature, ratification of or occession to 
the Convention. 

References to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the 
Seo in this chapter of Agendo 2 1 do not prejudice the position of 
States which view the Convention as hoving o unified character. 

Nothing in the progromme areas of this chapter should be 
interpreted as prejudicing the rights of the States involved in a 
dispute of sovereignty or in the delimitation of the moritime areas 
concerned. 



165 



CRS-121 
APPENDIX B 



UNITED NATIONS 

CONFERENCE ON 

ENVIRONMENT & DEVELOPMENT 



Umted 




^ 









1 992 



CRS-122 

CHAPTER 6 NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMEN" AMD KEY ENVII^ONMENTA^ ISSUES 



f 



T 



-D- 
Oceans and Coastal Resources 



=1-^ 



r^^\ 






M^ 









.AjI 




CRS-123 



I: I; 



-O (D B 
D Si. ° 

B) m ■' 



— tt> 


a> 


n 




S 3 


in 




n 


o- 


in 


ffi 


D 


o 


O 

3 


$ 


K 




U 


a_ 


n 



o — — 



3 


2 
o. 


if 


lO 


C/5 


3 X 


a> 


U 


Q. 


ffi 


§ £. 


■D 
o 


o 


?S 






s 


=? 












Q. 


S? 




O 

< 


<§ 



m 5 



go. o 



3 § 



3 §■ 
fi) = 

ii 

S = 

(A nj 

^ <■ 



5:5 
= m 

fi) n 
3 o 

Si § 

<D 3 

<i 




CRS-124 

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 



Overview 



The states and insular areas of the United States have a total of 
over 20,000 kilometers of coastline. The United States exerrises 
sovereignty over the estuarine and near-coastal waters of its 
adjacent territorial seas. In accordance with international law, the 
United States also exercises rights and responsibilities for resource 
conservation and management and environmental protection in its 
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).' Coastal and ocean ecosystems 
often extend beyond U.S. maritime zones into areas where similar rights and 
responsibilities are exercised by Canada, the former Soviet Union, Mexico and 
several nations of the Caribbean and Pacific. Exhibit 6d.2 summarizes 
selected ocean and coastal resource facts. 

The Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States, an area of 3.36 
milhon square nautical miles (1.14 thousand-million hectares), contains 
approximately one-fifth of the world's harvestable fish and shellfish. Exhibit 
6d.l illustrates the extent of the U.S. EEZ. In 1990 commercial landings by 
U.S. fishing vessels were valued at $3.9 thousand-million dollars. The value- 
added contribution of commercial marine fishery products added 
approximately $16.6 thousand-million to the U.S. gross national product. 
Consumers spent $26.6 thousand-million on seafood products.^ A substantial 
portion of oceanbome trade occurs in territorial waters and the EEZ. 

Coastal and estuarine areas include some of the richest, most diverse 
and most productive ecosystems on Earth. Important coastal habitats include: 
estuaries, salt and fresh marshes, tidal flats, coastal wetlands, sandy beaches, 
barrier islands, seagrass beds, mangrove forests, coral reef ecosystems, and 
deltas and dunes. It is difficult to quantify the economic benefits of some of 
these habitats and ecosystems. However, coastal waters sustain complex food 
webs that support important spawning, nursery and feeding grounds for 
commercially, recreationally and ecologically important fish and shellfish 
species.^ Almost 70 percent of commecially and recreationally important 
species offish and shellfish rely on estuaries for part of their life cycle. 

At least 30 percent of North American waterfowl winter in estuarine 
areas. Many other migratory birds depend on coastal or estuarine areas for 
breeding or migration. Shallow water estuaries and wetland areas provide 
important refiiges or "staging points" for migratory birds during their annual 
flight patterns. A number of marine mammals and endangered species spend 
part or all of their lives in coastal areas and specially protected areas of the 
United States. Coastal wetland vegetation filters pollutants, retains 
sediments, buffers coastal lands against erosion and flooding, and maintains 
integrity of groundwater quality and supply. However, these coastal areas 
and habitats are susceptible to degradation from human activities as well as 
natural events. 

Coastal areas are highly desired locations for people seeking either 
permanent or "second home" residences. In 1990, approximately 110 million 
people in the United States (40 percent of the total population) lived within 80 
kilometers of a coastline. By 2010, the population of the United States' 
coastal counties is expected to rise to 127 million people. The nation's most 
densely populated coastal region stretches along the U.S. northeast coast from 
Boston, Massachusetts, to Washington, D.C., and accounts for one-third of the 
nation's coastal population. The Southeast's coastal population is expected to 
increase 200 percent by 2010 with development of "retirement-oriented" 
communities.* In addition to the 50 states, over 3.6 million citizens and U.S. 
nationals live in eight inhabited insular areas that are under U.S. sovereignty 
in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The population is also increasing rapidly 
in these areas. (See Exhibit 1.5 in Chapter 1.) 



CRS-125 



CHAPTER 6 NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 



COASTAL LAND 
AND WATER AREA 



FISHERIES DATA 



SELECTED OCEAN AND COASTAL DATA 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) area: 

Total EEZ; 3.36 million square nautical miles (1.14 ttiousand-million hectares) 

Estuarine Drainage Area: 

676 0X) square kilometers 

Coastal Wetlands: 

84XKXD square kilometers (1 1 million hectares), approximately 12 percent of 
total estuarine drainage area 





Coastline 


Exclusive Economic Zone 




(statute miles) 


(square nautical miles) 


Conterminous only: 


4.993 




Atlantic 


2D69 


253,800 


Gulf 


1,631 


186200 


Pacific' 


1293 


236B00 


Alaska (total) 


6,640 


950,000 


Hawaii 


750 


695X)00 


Extro-terrltorial: 






Caribbean 


441 


58>100 


Pacific'" 


335 


981 DOO 


Total: 


13,056 


3,362,600 



* excluding Hawaii. Alaska. Amencan Samoa and Guam, and other U.S. insular areas 

" mduding Pueno Rico and the U.S Virgin Islands 

"• including only American Samoa. Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Manana 

Islands 



Commercial: 

■ U.S fisheries accounted for six percent of total world commercial fishery 
landings in 1989. 

■ 5 thousar>d-mlllion kilos (4.995 million metrk; tons), valued at S3.89 
ttiousand-million were landed by U.S. commercial fishermen In 1 990. 

■ 92,900 craft were used in commercial fishing activities in 1988. 

■ Approximately 2741)00 men and women were engaged in commercial 
fishing full-time In 1988. An additional 90,000 persons were employed by 
4,600 processors and v»/tiolesalers of fishery products. 

Recreational marine fisheries: (data from Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 
coasts only) 

■ Approximately 17 million U.S. rrxarine recreatiorral fishermen made 39.8 
million fishing trips. 

■ Approximately 231 million fish (roughly 143 million kilos) were caught. 

■ 86 percent of these fishing trips occurred within 16 kilometers of shore. 



Exhibit 6d^ 



-250- 



CRS-126 

Ch^-^TER 6 NATURAL [RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMFMTAi ISSUES 



NON-LIVING 
RESOURCES 



Off-Shore Oil and Gas Production 

1 .65 million square nautical miles (560 thousand-million hectares) of Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS).* 

■ In 1989, 13.2 million hectares were under lease. Of ttiat, 3.16 million 
hectares were under exploration, development and production for oil 
and gas. 

■ 8.5 billion barrels of oil and condensate were produced from federal 
waters in the OCS between 1954 and 1989. 

■ 2.46 million-million cubic meters of natual gas were produced from 
federal waters in the OCS between 1954 and 1989. 



Year 

1954 
1972 
1989 



Crude oil Natural gas 

(thousand-million cubic meters) (thousand-million cubic meters) 
0.525 170 

65.480 84.95 

48.518 118.93 



OIL SPILLS 
INVESTIGATED BY 
THE U.S COAST 
GUARD IN 1982, 
1986 AND 1989 



Year 

1982 
1986 
1989 



Vessels" 

(cubic meters) 
14,383 
12,869 
5M76— 



Non-vessels 

(cubic meters) 

24,981 

4,921 

2271 



TOTAL 

(cubic meters) 
39,364 
17,790 
53.747 



• This B the federal portion of the United Stales EEZ plus ConHnenta) Shelf Extensions covered by the Outer Continental 

Shelf Lands Act 
*" Includes tankships, lank barges and other vessels; 

On March 24. 1989. the &rjron Valdez spilled 40.878 cubic meters of crude oil into AlasKas Pnnce William Sound. 



SOURCES: 

Coastal Land and Water Am 

U.S Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Ocean Survey Coast and 

Geodetic Sun/ey. Chief Geographer. 
U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Ocean Service Strategic 

Assessments Brancti. Estuanes of me United States: Vital StatistKS of a National Resource Base Rockville MD 

October 1990: 79pp. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adtrtnistration. National Ocean Service Rockville MD 
Ocean Assessments Division, in cooperation with Department of Interior National Wetlands Inventory Fish and'wiWIife 
Service. Washington. D.C.; and the National Wedands Research Center. Rsh and Wildlife Senrtce. Sidell Louisiana 
Coastal Wetlands of the United States. An Accounting of A Valuable National Resource. February 1991 59pp 

U.S. Depantnent of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 77je Coastiine of the United Stales 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovemmenI Printing Office: 1975. 

Fisheries Data 

U.S I^artment of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries Sen/k» 

Fishenes of the United Slates. 1989. Current Fishery Statistics no. 8900. U^pp.. and Fishenes of the United States 
1990. Current Fishey Statistics, no. 9000. 111pp. Silver Spring. MD.: May 1990; May 1991. 

Non-Uving Rasourcas 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. Federal Offshore Statistics: 1989: Leasing. Exploration and 
Revenues OCS Report MMS 90-0072: 1990: 104pp. 

Oil Spills 

U.S. Department of TransportaUon. U.S. Coast Guard. GMEP Office. Washington, D.C. 



-251- 



CRS-127 



CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 



Increasing population and development are stressing U.S. coastal 
systems. Demand for prime coastal property for residential and industrial 
purposes has created intense competition and controversy over appropriate 
uses of these lands. Constructing harbors, industrial facilities and services for 
tourists and others leads to filling and draining wetlands, modifying 
shorelines to protect investments and increases in pollution loads. 

Development in many coastal areas has "sprawled" across the 
landscape. Residential and industrial developments have replaced farms, 
forests, wetlands, woodlands, and fish and wildlife habitats. Between 43 and 
51 percent of annual U.S. residential construction between 1970 and 1989 was 
in coastal areas. Some 6.7 milhon housing units were constructed in the 
nation's coastal areas during the 1980s. The most dramatic growth occurred 
in Florida and California, where almost 45 percent of the nation's coastal 
housing was built. Florida and California have lost 46 percent and 91 
percent, respectively, of their original wetlands. 

Natural coastal ecosystems have been disrupted by poorly planned or 
inefficient development patterns. Commercial fishing and industrial activities 
are especially vulnerable to rising property values along waterways. 
Condominiums and second- or vacation-home developers purchase dock space, 
particularly fish docks, and develop waterfront condominiums and marinas, 
displacing fishermen from this area. Development of recreational facilities in 
some undeveloped areas has created pollution from "point" and "non-point" 
sources, and destroyed fish and wildlife habitat. Coastal erosion and public 
access to beaches remain problems in many areas with high property values. 

Additional leisure time has increased the demand for parks, 
recreational facilities and fishery resources. Excluding Hawaii, Alaska and 
the U.S. insular areas, over 27,000 recreation sites covering 114,400 square 
kilometers, under public ownership and/or management by local, state and 
federal governments, are in U.S. coastal areas. Local governments own the 
majority of these. Almost 4,000 of these sites are adjacent to tidally 
influenced waters, and about 1,500 are adjacent to the open ocean. Over 200 
million hectares of federal lands are managed by the National Park Service 
and the Fish and Wildlife Service in Hawaii. In Alaska, over 51.6 million 
hectares are managed by the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife 
Service. These areas are protected for public enjoyment. 

Coastal areas support major population and transportation centers, 
commercial and recreational fishing industries, agricultural activities and 
industrial facilities. Traders, guides and equipment suppliers in coastal areas 
contribute thousands of millions of dollars to the national economy. Scenic 
and recreational appeal of coastal and marine areas greatly enhance many 
local economies. The economic base of many coastal communities centers on 
providing visitors with opportunities to enjoy beaches and related recreational 
activities such as swimming, surfing, fishing and boating. Tourism and 
related activities generate thousands of millions of dollars each year in coastal 
U.S. communities. 

The offshore oil and gas industry in the coastal states Oocated 
primarily in the Gulf of Mexico, off southern California, and in the Arctic 
Ocean) is of national strategic and economic importance. Approximately 11 
percent of the nation's oil production and 23 percent of the nation's natural 
gas production were produced from these areas in 1989.^ (See Box 6d.l.) 
Thousands of millions of dollars of economically recoverable resources remain 
in the Gulf of Mexico and other outer continental shelf (OCS) areas; only 
about five percent of the total number of designated OCS tracts have been 
leased for energy exploration and development.^ Coastal areas are also a 
potentially important source of non-energy mineral resources, including sand 



-252- 



CRS-128 

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 



U.S. COASTAL AREAS: ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS 

Over the past several decades, ttie United States has made substantial 
progress in correcting poor resource management practices. This 
includes curbing the loss and modification of some types of coastal 
habitats, and reducing environmental loadings of some types of 
contaminants such as nutrients, certain pesticides and toxic industrial 
chemicals. However, many of our coastal areas continue to suffer from 
over-utilization, continuing losses of important habitat and damage from 
pollution. For example: 

■ Striped boss have shown a steady decline over the past 15 years in 
almost every estuary on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Salmonid 
populations continue to drop in San Francisco and Willapa Bays, and 
the Columbia River. Other interjurisdictional and estuarine species, 
such as sturgeon, shad, redfish, oysters and dungeoness crab are also 
declining in at least part of their ranges. Maryland's oyster harvest has 
declined more than 90 percent from levels of a century ago. 

■ Waterfowl are declining in all coastal areas. Black duck, canvasback, 
redhead, pintail, blue wing teal, scaup and cackling Canada goose 
populations are showing significant declines. 

■ Coastal wetlands, which support many fish and wildlife species, are still 
being lost in many areas. In Louisiana alone, there is an estimated loss 
of 12,800 hectares of coastal wetlands annually. 

■ Submerged aquatic vegetation, which is a source of food and 
essential habitat for many aquatic species, has decreased drastically 
in several estuaries in recent times, including the Chesapeake, Tampa, 
Mobile, Galveston, San Francisco and Willapa bays, and ttie Laguna 
Madre. At least 65 percent of the submerged aquatic vegetation 
present in the Chesapeake Boy in 1 960 had been lost by 1 988. 

■ In 1990, of the 6.88 million hectares of estuarine waters that were 
classified for harvest, 37 percent are harvest-limited. In Louisiana in 
1985, harvest from 24 percent of the state's classified estaurine wasters 
was prohibited. In 1990, ttiis had risen to 35 percent. 

■ Restrictions or health advisories for the consumption of certain types of 
fish and shellfish ore In effect In many coastal areas. 

■ Beach closures due to bacterial contamination or presence of debris, 
including medical wastes, remain a problem in some areas. 



and gravel, phosphorite, manganese nodules, cobalt-ferromanganese crusts 
and polymetallic sulfides. 

The United States has many federal, state and local programs to 
manage and protect marine areas and resources subject to its jurisdiction. 
These include the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), Marine Protection, 
Research and Sanctuaries Act, the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Magnuson 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA), the Outer Continental 
Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, among others. A 
description of these environmental laws is presented in Chapter 5. State and 
federal coastal-zone management programs are intended to balance 
development and use of coastal resources with environmental and social 



CRS-129 

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 

considerations. These programs encourage multiple use and long-term 
protection of U.S. coastal areas. 

More than half of the U.S. population resides in coastal areas. These 
coastal areas account for less than 10 percent of the nation's land. A number 
of approaches have been taken to manage the effect of population growth on 
the coastal environment. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, for 
example, established a national framework for coastal resources management 
to assist states and insular areas in developing the capability to manage their 
coastal resources. The federal government provides financial and technical 
assistance and policy guidance to states and territorial governments to 
prepare and implement programs. State and local governments must balance 
the use and conservation of coastal and ocean resources. The federal 
government has invested over $600 million in these state programs. Twenty- 
nine coastal states and insular areas covering 94 percent of the U.S. coastline 
now have federally approved coastal zone management programs. In 1990, 
the act added a requirement for states and insular areas with approved CZM 
programs to develop coastal non-point pollution control programs. State 
programs must contain enforceable policies and mechanisms to reduce non- 
point sources of pollution and protect coastal waters. 

Individual U.S. states take the lead role in other programs such as the 
National Estuary Program. This program, created under the Clean Water 
Act, identifies significant estuaries, and establishes a process for improving 
and protecting water quality and enhancing coastal resources in the estuarine 
ecosystem. An estuary is nominated by a state governor and approved by the 
federal government. A Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan 
(CCMP) for managing the estuarine watershed is developed cooperatively with 
the participation of all interested parties. These include the appropriate 
government agencies, elected officials, academic institutions, interest groups 
and the public. The CCMP identifies the specific actions needed to restore 
and maintain the estuary and establishes a schedule for implementation. The 
program currently includes 17 estuaries. 



Characterization of the U.S. Coastal Areas and Resources' 



Northeast 
Atlantic 



A 



long the Northeast Atlantic coast, rocky tidal shorelines and 
islands are the dominant geologic feature. Estuaries are generally 
small. Boston, Massachusetts is the only major urban area. 
Forested areas predominate in this region. Harvesting is allowed 
I in 83 percent of the shellfish growing areas (approximately 3,120 
square kilometers). Over 325,000 metric tons of seafood valued at 
over $542 million were landed in the region in 1990. Lobsters, 
scallops and cod are the commercially important species. The Northeast 
Atlantic region has the fewest point sources of pollution and the lowest rate of 
pesticide application of all the regions. 



Middle Atlantic The Middle Atlantic is the most densely populated coastal region of the 

United States. It contains the greatest percentage of urban land, and includes 
New York City and Washington, D.C. Nevertheless, forest and agricultural 
land uses dominate in this region. Sixty percent of the wetlands in this region 
are found around the Chesapeake and Delaware bays. Approximately 84 
percent of the 19,500 square kilometers of classified shellfish growing areas 
are approved for harvesting. About 550,000 metric tons of seafood worth 
approximately $310 million were landed in this region in 1990. Major 
fisheries of the region include the sea scallop and estuarine-dependant blue 
crab. Estuaries in this area provide important habitat for striped bass and 
bluefish. 



-254- 



CRS-130 

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 



Southeast 
Atlantic 



Gulf of Mexico 



Pacific 



Alaska 



Hawaii 



The Southeast Atlantic coast is characterized by two shorelines: lagoons 
fronted by barrier islands and low-lying marshy shoreline formations. The 
population density varies significantly from sparsely populated areas of North 
and South Carolina to high densities in Florida. Extensive forests cover the 
landscape adjoining several estuaries, such as the Albemarle/PamHco Sounds. 
Agriculture is also a major land use. This region contains the second highest 
amount of wetlands of all the regions. Harvesting is allowed in over 75 
percent of the classified shellfish waters. Over 131,000 metric tons of seafood 
valued at $ 169 million were landed in the region in 1990. Estuarine- 
dependant species, including shrimp, crabs and menhaden accounted for over 
half of the harvest. Municipal wastewater treatment plants and pesticides 
applied to agricultural lands are the major sources of coastal pollution. 

Large shallow estuaries dominate the Gulf of Mexico coast. They provide 
important habitats for many estuarine-dependant living resources. Abundant 
wetlands are found in this area. Significant wetland losses are occurring due 
to natural erosion, accelerated erosion caused by river diversions, damming 
and channelization, and pollution. Conversion to agriciilture has been a major 
cause of loss of wetlands in the Mississippi delta and Florida Everglades. 
Agricultural and forestry activities are the most prevalent land uses. 
Although only five percent of the region is considered urban, the Gulf of 
Mexico region is the second fastest growing coastal area. Most of the region's 
population is concentrated in Florida and Texas. Approximately 42 percent of 
classified shellfish-growing waters are open for harvesting. In 1990, the Gulf 
of Mexico region landed almost 800 metric tons of seafood valued at $640 
million. Shrimp landings are second to menhaden in volume, but accounted 
for more than half of the value of all landings. The Gulf of Mexico has more 
point sources of pollution than any other region. Over half of these point 
sources are associated with the petrochemical industry. Farmers in the Gulf 
of Mexico apply more pesticides to their crops than in any other coastal 
region. 

The Pacific region has the second highest percentage of urban land. Forests 
are the major land use along the coast and estuaries north of San Francisco 
Bay. Next to the Northeast Atlantic coast, the Pacific has the fewest point 
sources of pollution and the lowest amount of pesticide application of coastal 
regions. The Pacific region contains the least amount of coastal wetlands. 
Harvesting is limited in more than 70 percent of the approved shellfish- 
growing waters. This region landed 310,000 metric tons of seafood valued at 
$315 million in 1990 in this region. Over half of the total value is from 
anadromous salmon fisheries. 

Alaska has two distinct types of coastlines: deep glacial Qords and wide 
dendritic fluvial plains. Coastal bays and rivers provide important habitats 
for major runs of anadramous fish, marine mammals and commercially sought 
species. Millions of seabirds nest and marine mammals haul out on numerous 
islands around the coast. Pacific cod, pollock and other trawl-caught species 
dominate fish landings in Alaska. In 1990, the fishing industry landed 
approximately 2.7 million metric tons of seafood products valued at over $1.5 
thousand-million in Alaskan ports. 

The Hawaiian islands, a chain of volcanic islands, rise from the seafloor in the 
tropical Pacific. Forested land dominates in Hawaii, and much of the 
coastline is undeveloped. The population is concentrated on Oahu, one of the 
eight major islands. Tourism is a major part of the economic base of the state. 
In 1990, over 6 million visitors generated over $9 thousand-million in the 



CRS-131 

CHAPTER 6 NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSU ES 

tourist industry. In 1990, 1,300 metric tons of seafood valued at $6.5 million 
were landed in Hawaii. 

Insular Areas of Insular areas under U.S. sovereignty or administration range from coralline- 
the Pacific and fringed volcanic seamounts of American Samoa, Guam, Palau and the 
Caribbean Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana islands in the Pacific, to the U.S. 

Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico in the Caribbean. Approximately 30 percent of 
the U.S. EEZ lies in the insular areas. Fishing for tuna and nearshore reef 
species and tourism are important components of the economies of many 
Pacific islands. Tourism, light industry and petroleum refining are integral to 
the economic base of the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Chapter 3 on 
indigenous peoples gives a more detailed description of these insular areas. 



Ocean Resources 

Living Marine ^^"^^ ver 20,000 species offish and shellfish inhabit marine, estuarine 

Resources ^ ^ and freshwater ecosystems in the waters of the United States. Of 

these, approximately 300 species are fished for commercial and 
recreational purposes. Many species are enjoyed in their 
environment for their aesthetic value. 



o 



Commercial Fisheries. During the 1960s and 1970s, foreign 
distant water fleets exploited highly productive waters off the United States 
such as the Georges Bank region. Foreign factory freezer trawlers 
revolutionized deepwater commercial fishing. In 1976, Congress enacted the 
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Through eight 
regional fishery management councils, fisheries resources within the EEZ are 
managed for their maximum sustained and optimum yield. States regulate 
the nearshore fisheries within their coastal waters. 

Since 1976, the United States hai^esting capacity has increased 
allowing a higher proportion of the maximum sustainable and optimum yield 
within the U.S. EEZ to be harvested the U.S. fishing fleet. For certain 
fisheries, however, the average catch per unit effort has declined. Reasons for 
these declines vary. Over-exploitation of target and non-target species, coastal 
habitat alteration, and point and non-point source pollution discharges have 
had major impacts on fishery resources. 

Total landings and their value have increased substantially since 
1970. Exhibit 6d.3 illustrates the trends in total landings and their value 
from 1970 to 1989. Almost 5 million metric tons of edible fish and shellfish 
and industrial fishery products were landed by U.S. commercial fishing 
operators in 1990. The total value of this harvest was worth $3.89 thousand- 
million. This compares with landings of 2.2 million metric tons offish and 
shellfish valued at $602 million in 1970. In 1970, Americans consumed 
approximately 5.13 kilos of edible seafood per person. By 1990, consumption 
had increased to 7.2 kilos per person. 

Marine species comprise 85 percent of the commercial, non- 
aquaculture catch of seafood in the United States. In 1990, 1.44 million 
metric tons of pollock were landed from the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. 
This catch alone accounted for approximately 30 percent of the total 
commercial landings and was valued at $272 million. The other important 
fisheries landings were: 900,000 metric tons of menhaden valued at $94 
million from the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico; 330,000 metric tons of 
salmon from the Pacific Northwest and Alaska valued at $612 million; and 
157,000 metric tons of shrimp from the Gulf of Mexico valued at $491 
milhon.* 



-256- 



CRS-132 

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 



U.S. Commercial Landings 



"B 3-- 



= 2 




1970 



1975 



1980 



1985 



1989 



1990 



Exhibit 6(1.3 



A 1989 survey of commercial fisheries resources of the United States 
concluded that of 81 commercially harvested stocks (i.e., species or species 
groups):' 

■ 14 are over-exploited and another 36 are fully exploited; 

■ 10 of 14 over-exploited stocks would require five to 20 years to recover if 
fishing stopped altogether, but commercial fishing continues in eight of 
these 10 fisheries; 

■ , Nearly 30 percent of all species and stocks studied have experienced 

population declines since 1977; 

■ Instifficient information exists on the status of 29 percent of U.S. fisheries. 

Aquacutfure. Although the U.S. aquaculture industry is relatively new, it 
is expanding rapidly. Aquaculture of some spedes is especially important in 
certain U.S. regions. Catfish, trout and salmon are among the most valuable 
species cultured in the United States. In 1989, 373.5 million kilos, worth 
$740 million of aquacultured species were produced by the U.S. aquaculture 
industry.'" 

Marine Recreational Fisheries. Fishing is one of the most popular 
recreational activities in the United States. In 1990, approximately 143 
million kilos of marine fish were caught during an estimated 39.8 million 
fishing trips. Popular marine sportfish include bluefish, mahi mahi, spotted 
seatrout, sea bass, marlin, striped bass, red drum, weakfish, summer and 
winter flounder, sharks and Atlantic croaker in the Atlantic and Gulf of 
Mexico regions. Mackerel, smelt, striped bass, rockfish and flounder are 
species caught on the Pacific coast Most recreational fishing occurs within 16 
kilometers of the shore. Although the number of marine recreational fishing 
trips has remained relatively constant, as Exhibit 6d.4 illustrates, the total 
annual catch has declined substantially since 1980." 



-257- 



CRS-133 

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 



600- 



U-S. Marine Recreational Fisheries 



500 


1 




400 


1 


c 

1 300 

z 




20C 




1 


IOC 




1 


0- 




■ 1 



Catch 
Trips 




1985 



1988 



Exhibit 6d.4 



Marine Mammals. All marine mammals found in the waters of the United 
States are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Ten 
species of large whales, 34 species of small cetaceans (porpoises and dolphins), 
13 species of pinnipeds (seals, sea lions and walrus), and five other species 
(sea otters, polar bear, manatee and dugong) of marine mammals spend part 
or all of their time in waters of the United States and its insular areas. 
Population levels of manatees, Hawaiian monk seals, northern right whales, 
humpback whales, California sea otters. Stellar sea lions and the Gulf of 
California harbor porpoises are much lower than historical levels and have 
been designated as endangered or threatened.'^ The MMPA, enacted in 
1972, was the first national law to prohibit taking (defined as actual or 
attempted killing, hunting, capturing, harming or harassing) of marine 
mammals. The MMPA allows taking by permit for scientific research, public 
education, enhancing the survival or recovery of a species or stock, and by 
Alaska Natives for subsistence and handicraft purposes. Small numbers of 
marine mammals may also be taken incidental to commercial fishing activities 
and specified activities other than commercial fishing, if the federal 
government determines that such taking will have a negligible impact on the 
marine mammal species. Concerns that led Congress to enact the MMPA 
included: declining populations, particularly of large whales; calls for a global 
moratorium on commercial whaling; and the incidental capture of marine 
mammals by commercial tuna fishermen, particularly in the eastern tropical 
Pacific." The box on the next page highlights advances in the protection of 
marine mammal populations since enactment of the MMPA. 

Marine Turtles. The five species of sea turtles which are listed by the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) as endangered or threatened are green, 
hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, leatherback and loggerhead. Despite protection 
under the ESA, incidental capture in commercial shrimp trawls, loss of 
nesting habitat and marine pollution have prevented turtle populations from 
recovering. Scientists have identified incidental capture of sea turtles in 
commercial shrimp trawls as the single most serious threat to population 



-258- 



CRS-IM 

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 



Marine Mammal Protection Act 

Several significant changes have occurred since the United States Congress passed the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in 1972: 

Eastern PaciTic population of gray whales recovers. 

Population estimates indicate ttiot the eastern Pacific population of gray whales numbered 
15,000 to 20,000 prior to the initiation of commercial exploitation in 1846. By the turn of the 
century, ttie population was severely depleted. All commercial whaling on the species 
ceased in 1946. The population has recovered to the pre-exploitotion levels, which is currently 
estimated at 21 ,000 animals. Between 1967 and 1988, the population grew at an annual rate 
of 3.2 percent (Breiwick and Braham, 1984). 

Dolphin captures by U.S. tuna fishermen reduced over 90 percent. 

In 1972, American tuna fishermen killed 423,678 dolphins in purse-seine fishery in the eastern 
tropical Pacific. By Lising new gear. United States fishermen reduced incidental capture to less 
than 20,000 per year in the 1980s. In 1990, three U.S. canneries-suppliers of nearly 75 percent 
of canned tuna consumed nationwide— terminated purchase of tuna caught in dolphin- 
threatening operotiorTs. In 1990, the observed kill of dolphins by U.S. fishing boots was 5,083 
(Hall and Boyer, 1990). 

Comnnercial fur seal harvests ended. 

A commercial harvest of Northern fur seal for their pelts was conducted under the supervision 
of the U.S. government in the Pribilof islands from 1916 to 1984 under the North Pacific Fur Seal 
Convention. The meat from these animals was also used for subsistence by the Pribilof 
islanders. Beginning in 1985, the harvest has been for subsistence use only and the kill was 
limited to 3,713 The kill since then has been less than 2,000 per year. The population has 
been declining for many years and Is considered depleted. The current population of fur seals 
in the entire eastern Bering Sea is thought to be 871 ,000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990). 

Sea otter populations In Alaska are thriving. 

Between 1742 and 1911, commercial fur hunters reduced sea otters in Alaska to e)ctremely low 
population levels. Snce sea otters are now protected under the MMPA, their numbers and 
distribution in Alaska continue to increase. Between 1965 and 1969, 402 sea otters were 
translocated to six sites in southeastern Alaska. Nearly 4,000 sea otters were counted in the 
same areas between 1987 to 1988. Most recent population estimates put the number of 
Alaska sea otters at between 100,000 and 150.000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990). 

Rorida manatee populations currently number between 1,200 to 2,000. 

The most recent survey counted 1 ,465 manatees. Species decline has been linked to killing or 
injury of animals by vessels in Florida waterways, degradation of habitat by extensive coastal 
development, and episodes of intense cold weather beyond the animals' ability to survive. 
Recovery programs li>y local, state, federal government, and norvproftt organizations hove 
targeted increased scientific research and public education as tools to halt species decline. In 
spite of these efforts, known annual mortality from all causes has been increasing (Marine 
Mammal Commission, 1991). 



recovery of loggerhead and Kemp's ridley turtles. In 1987, the federal 
government reqxiired commercial shrimp trawlers to use Turtle Excluder 
Devices (TEDs) to minimize the then-estimated annual loss of 50,000 sea 
turtles drowned when taken incidentally in shrimp nets. Since 
implementation of these regulations, the number of dead sea turtles washing 
ashore on beaches during shrimping season has dropped dramatically." 

Specially The section on plants, animals and biodiversity addresses specially protected 

Protected Areas aquatic and terrestrial areas. Areas within U.S. maritime zones which are 

- 259 - 



CRS-135 



CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 



representative of various ecosystems have been set aside for the conservation 
of plant and animal species. 

National Marine Sanctuaries.'^ National Marine Sanctuaries range in 
size from less than 1 to over 2,600 square nautical miles (over 883,000 
hectares). These sanctuaries harbor a diverse array of marine plants and 
animals, from huge v/hales to tiny brightly colored sea snails. In many cases, 
these protected waters provide a secure habitat for marine species close to 
extinction. The nine national marine sanctuaries represent distinct marine 
environments in temperate and tropical areas, such as nearshore, open water 
and benthic (or ocean floor) ecosystems. They are: Gulf of the Farallones 
(northern California); Channel Islands (southern California); Cordell Bank 
(northern Cahfomia); Gray's Reef ((Georgia coast); the MONITOR (North 
Carolina); Fagatele Bay (American Samoa); Florida Keys including Looe Key 
and Key Largo. Additional locations are in the process of being designated. 

National Estuarine Researct") Reserves. '" Currently, there are 19 
National Estuarine Research Reserves (NERR) preserving approximately 
120,000 hectares of estuarine waters and salt and freshwater wetlands. These 
areas are protected for support of long-term research. NERR sites are 
selected which represent biogeographical and typological ecosystems of U.S. 
mainland and trust territories. Four NERR's are located in the Gulf of Mexico 
and the Caribbean, eight on the Atlantic coast, one in the Great Lakes, and 
five in the Pacific. The most recent addition, the Chesapeake Bay National 
Estuarine Research Reserve in Virginia, was designated in June 1991. It 
proterts nearly 1,200 hectares of wetland and upland habitat. Additional sites 
are currently being developed." 

National Park Service. The National Park System has many holdings in 
coastal areas in the United States and its territories. These coastal areas not 
only provide spectacular scenery, but allow for conservation, protection and 
research of wildlife, plants, and natural and cultural resources. Coastal and 
riparian parks include: the Everglades (Florida), Channel Islands (southern 
California), Acadia National Park (Maine); Big Cypress National Preserve 
(Florida); Pu'uohonua o Honaunau (Hawaii); Buck Island Reef (Virgin 
Islands), and Fort Jefferson (Dry Tortugas, Florida) National Monuments; 
USS Arizona Memorial (Hawaii); Sitka National Historical Park (Alaska); 
Assateague Island (ViT:ginia) and Point Reyes (California) National 
Seashores.'* 

National Wildlife Refuges. The National Wildlife Refuge System is a 
unique and highly diverse network of over 36 million hectares of lands and 
waters in the United States. Over 470 national wildlife refuges are managed 
to conserve and enhance populations of fish and wildlife and their habitats. 
There are over 150 coastal refuges that provide nursery areas for anadromous, 
estuarine and marine fish, habitat for nesting and wintering migratory 
waterfowl and seabirds, and the necessary environment for the enhancement 
of endangered or threatened species such as manatees. Some of these coastal 
refuges include: Yukon Delta (Alaska), San Juan Islands (Washington), 
Howland Island (U.S. Pacific insular area), Arkansas (Texas), Key West 
(Florida) and Chincoteague (Virginia). 

Challenges: Federal and state regulatory agencies are facing many challenges regarding 

Ongoing and in the management and conservation of the nation's living marine resources and 
the Future th^ir habitats. Many are currently being addressed through various federal 

programs. These include: addressing the competition for resources among 



-260- 



CRS-136 

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 

commercial, recreational and indigenous fishermen; improving the 
effectiveness of international fisheries relationships with foreign fishermen; 
reducing bycatch/incidental catch; improving predictability of stock 
assessments; improving compliance with fisheries management regulations; 
resolving conflicts between Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered 
Species Act and fisheries; rebuilding overfished marine fisheries; protecting 
living marine resource habitat; assessing the effects of climate change on 
living marine resources and their habitats; and improving the safety of 
seafood for human consumption.'' 

Non-Living The continental shelves off the Atlantic, northwestern and southwestern 

Marine Pacific (Alaska and California), and Gulf of Mexico coasts contain significant 

Resources mineral and energy resources. The United States manages the minerals, 

natural gas and oil resources of the outer continental shelf (OCS) under the 
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The OCSLA authorizes leasing 
publicly owned offshore areas to private companies for environmentally sound 
ertraction of sub-seabed mineral resources. Exploration and development may 
occur only after analysis of potential environmental impacts, compliance with 
federal environmental laws and compliance with state coastal-zone 
management plans. From 1973 to 1988, the federal government spent over 
$500 million dollars on studies relating to the effects of OCS development on 
the marine, coastal and human environments.*" 

Oil and Gas Deposits. The federal OCS encompasses approximately 560 
million hectares. Of this total, 13.2 million hectares were under lease to oil 
and gas exploration, development find production companies during 1989. In 
1989, the OCS oil and gas program generated more than $2.9 thousand- 
million in production royalties and lease-related revenues for the federal 
government, ^proximately 1.35 thousand-million cubic meters of oil and 
2.46 million-million cubic meters of natural gas have been produced from the 
OCS between 1954 to 1989. An additional 651.8 million cubic meters were 
produced fh>m the states' waters during this period for a U.S. EEZ total of 
about 2 thousand-million cubic meters. Between 1971 and 1988, oil 
production from OCS wells averaged almost one million barrels per day. In 
1972, the OCS supplied almost 14 percent of the U.S. production of natural 
gas and 12 percent of the oil produced. By 1989, the OCS supplied almost 24 
percent of all natural gas produced in the U.S and more than 10 percent of 
the nation's oil production.*' 

Balancing development of oil and gas resources on the outer 
continental shelf with protecting the coastal and marine environments and 
their living resources has been controversial. In response to public concern 
■^-'- over adverse environmental effects of OCS oil and gas activities, and in light 

of some uncertainties in the scientific analysis of potential ecological and 
social impacts of offshore development, in June 1990, President George Bush 
announced a delay on OCS leasing until after the year 2000 in many areas off 
California, Florida, the Pacific Northwest and the North Atlantic. The Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990 initiated a comprehensive federal oil spill liability, 
compensation, prevention and response program. This act established a $1 
thousand-million trust fund to improve prevention and cleanup of oil spills. 
The act includes monies for cleanup activities, improving the safety of marine 
transportation of oil and research. It also imposed a moratorium on oil and 
gas leasing off the North Carolina coast. 

Mineral Deposits. Blanket deposits of sand and gravel, placer deposits 
containing gold, platinum, chromite and titanium, polymetallic sulfides 
containing copper, lead, zinc and other minerals, ferromanganese crusts and 

- 261 - 



CRS-137 



CHAPTER 6: NATURAL Q£SOU^CJ.S ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 

nodules, and thick beds of phosphorite occur on the ocean floor in the U.S. 
EEZ At present, there are no mining operations in the U.S. EEZ; however 
sand and gravel are dredged from the entrance to New York Harbor and sold 
for commercial use. Gold was mined in Alaskan state waters near the city of 
Nome from 1986 to 1990. Sand is also dredged periodically from state coastal 
waters for beach nourishment. 



I 



Coastal and Marine Pollution ..,,., 

n the 1970s municipal sewage and contammants m mdustnal 
wastewater 'were the primary sources of pollution. The construction of 
sewage treatment plants in coastal cities and installation of 
wastewater treatment plants at industrial facilities during the past two 
decades has curtailed many of the problems caused by these sources. 
Additional efforts currently underway should address remaining 
sewage treatment problems.^ Non-point sources, stormwater, and 

combined storm and sanitary sewers, remain the largest challenges to fully 

addressing coastal pollution. 

Coastal Growing coastal populations are generating an increasing amount of 

PoSudon munTc"pal sewage, urban runoff, and marine debris. Industrial manufac unng 

PoUution mu P^^^^^ ^ ,^^^„^_ dock and manna structures, agricultural 

runoff and littering by the general population also contnbuU to marine 
pollution problems. The United States has initiated a number of measures to 
combat coastal pollution problems. The status of some of these programs is 
discussed below In addition, special programs have been estabhshed for the 
Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico. 

Sewage Treatment. In the past, one of the most severe sources of coastal 
pollution was municipal sewage. In some areas, coastal waters subject to 
limited tidal flushing action received sewage treated by only very basic, or 
primaiy, treatment procedures, and some received entirely untrea^d sewage 
either all the time or when rainfall overloaded combined storm and sanitary 
sewer systems. More municipal sewage is now treated pnor to discharge mto 
coastal as well as fresh waters. The U.S. population served by sewage 
treatment facilities providing secondary treatment or better has ^n^^^ased 
from 85 million in 1972 to 144 million in 1988 and the population served by 
raw discharge facilities has dropped from five million to one million dunng 
Se same p7riod.» Significant improvements in coastal water qualiy have 
been achieved for many of the nation's coastal cities smce implementation of 
secondary, and in a few cases tertiary, or advanced, wastewater treatment 
Sever; in a few of the nation's largest and oldest aties such as the Boston, 
Massachusetts metropolitan area, antiquated treatment plants have not yet 
^S. Slly upgraded; improvements have been undert^en m the Paft several 
years, itebuilding sewer systems to separate combined sanitary and storm 
sewers also presents formidable problems due to the high cost and logistic 
difficulties of rebuilding old sewer systems in extremely dense population 
centers such as the New York and Boston metropolitan areas. 

Non-point and Other Diffuse Sources. Non-point source ^°^^°'^ 
a^cultural and urban areas has been more diffic^Jt to control The Um^d 
Sates continues to use focused geographic approaches designed to Protect 
particularly fragile or threatened coastal areas from non-pomt and oAer 
dfffuse soirees. Model urban nxnoff/stormwater programs are ^^P^^^J°^ 
Puget Sound in the state of Washington and in several other ^ties .^^"^ 
p^grams have demonstrated reductions in toxic and other pollutant loadings. 



-262- 



CRS-138 

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMPNTAI ISSUES 



Agricultural management practices are being implemented through voluntary 
programs specifically aimed at coastal protection in the Chesapeake Bay, the 
North Carolina sounds and other coastal areas. Some states also limit 
suburban development and other construction in buffer zones along their 
estuarine coastlines. However, continuing development and incomplete 
protection against non-point source impacts continue to threaten water quality 
in many coastal areas. The United States is trying a new approach under the 
1990 amendments of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The act combines 
water quality and coastal zone management activities into Coastal Non-point 
Pollution Control Programs, which coastal states are required to develop by 
the end of 1994. 

One area currently receiving increased recognition and remaining to 
be addressed is the contribution of airborne sources of nutrient and toxic 
pollutants. Airborne sources of pollutants deposited into coastal water bodies 
are now estimated, in some cases, to contribute from 10 to 46 percent of 
nitrogen loads and significant portions of phosphorus loads to some major 
northeast estuaries.^* 

Direct and Indirect Industrial Discharges. Direct discharges into coastal 
waters from industrial point sources have been markedly controlled in the 
past 20 years. Large proportions of previously released toxic and conventional 
pollutants have been removed from the waste streams of many large 
industrial and manufacturing facilities. This has resulted in improved coastal 
water quality in the immediate vicinity of the plants. Development of 
regulations for some additional industrial categories which are not yet 
covered, as well as revisions to existing regulations, are expected to bring 
about additional reductions in the discharge of toxic and conventional water 
pollutants. 

Additional efforts are needed to adequately control toxic water 
pollutants from industrial and commercial facilities that discharge waste to 
municipal sewage treatment plants. The program for controlling these 
industrial releases, called the pretreatment program, requires each 
municipality to regulate these "indirect" dischargers. Most sewage treatment 
plants have not been designed to treat toxic pollutants. These pollutants can 
kill microbes that are part of the treatment process at the sewage treatment 
plant. Therefore, most industrial facilities must "pretreat" their effluent 
before discharging to the municipal sewer system. Pretreatment programs are 
now in place in almost all large municipalities. However, compliance 
monitoring difficulties combined with municipal budget constraints have made 
this a difficult program for some cities to conduct with full success. 

Cumulative "Minor" Point Source Effects. Toxic and conventional 
pollution of the coastal environment from a myriad of small commercial, 
industrial or resource extraction facilities has not yet been adequately 
addressed. These facilities have sometimes not been thoroughly controlled 
because a higher regulatory priority has been placed on large dischargers to 
achieve the largest individual pollutant load reductions. However, in some 
areas it appears that concentrations of many "minor" facilities are causing 
serious coastal water quality impairments. 

Floatables, Non-Biodegradables and Other Trash. Floatable trash is an 
aesthetic problem and poses serious ecological risks. Several states and 
municipalities have begun major trash cleanup programs, often mobilizing 



-263- 



CRS-139 

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 



CASE STUDY 
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM 

The Chesapeake Bay, with a surface area of 5,720 square kilometers, is the largest estuary in 
the United States. It is fed by 150 tributary rivers and streams, and supports 2,500 species of 
plants and animals and 13 million people. 

In recent decades, the bay suffered serioLis declines in quality and productivfty. In 
1975, elevated public concerns led to a $27 million. Environmental Protection Agency-directed 
study of the causes of the decline. Overabundance of phosphorus and nitrogen was seen as 
the dominant caLise of explosive algal growth that blocked out sunlight which bay grasses 
needed to survive, and depleted dissolve oxygen levels essential to all bay life. These 
conditions triggered a downward spiral of plants and animals competing for the depleted 
oxygen. The main sources of the excess nutrient loads include agricultural lands, specifically 
fertilizers and animal wastes, as well as urban and suburban waste discharges and runoff, and 
atmospheric deposrhon. 

Though numerous federal and state pollution control and resource restoration 
programs were in operation, they were fragmented and unfocused. The EPA study 
recommendations provided a framework for coordinated, goal-driven actions by the three 
bay-bordering states (Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia), the District of Columbia, the 
Chesapeake Bay Commission (an interstate body for legislative coordination) and the federal 
government. To reduce algal growth and its impacts on submerged aquatic vegetation and 
dissolved oxygen levels, a 40-percent reduction in nitrogen and phosphorous loadings to the 
bay became o dominant goal of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. 

The Chesapeake Bay restoration has proceeded on many fronts. These include 
improved sewage treatment, phosphate detergent bans, better compliance with 
environmental requirements by federal facilities, reduced fertilizer use and improved animal 
waste management, better erosion control, a moratorium on striped-bass fishing, and 
construction of a fish passage facility at Conowingo Dam on the Susquehanna River. Plare are 
underwoy or already being implemented to restrict shorelirte development, further improve 
controls on urban and farm runoff, protect wetlands, reduce pollutant discharges from 
recreational boats, improve fisheries management and limit discharges of toxic chemicals. 

Bay water quality improvements reported In 1991 included a 20-percent reduction in 
total phosphorus since 1985, even though wastewater flows from municipal sources continued 
to grow. This progress is attributed primarily to reductions of phosphorus loadings from point 
source discharges. But norvpoint source control efforts on farm lands and a ban on 
phosphate detergents oiso contributed to reductions. Submerged aquatic vegetation, the 
most sensitive indicator of overall water quality irrprovement in the bay, increased its 
coverage in the mid-bay by 57 percent since 1984. Striped bass are increasing, again allowing 
sport and commercial fisNng for thus popular fish. 

Nitrogen levels, however, hove continued to rise due moslty to continuing population 
growth and related increases in wastewater flows wrthout removal of their nitrate content. A 
major reduction is expected from the 30-percent cut In nitrogen fertilizer use. But this result will 
take some time to show up because nitrogen travels from fields to the bay predominantly 
through groundwater, a process that takes several years. Another concern is nitrogen 
deposition from the air (primarily from power plants and vehicle emissiors), which may 
constitute nearty 40 percent of the loadings to the boy from human sources. 

The parties to the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement are currently reevaluating their 
commitment to a 40-percent reduction of phosphorus and nitrogen entering the bay by the 
year 2000. This evaluation is expected to provide a refined bay-v^flde nutrient reduction 
commitment, including basirvspecific nutrient reduction targets and revised strategies to 
achieve the water quality and living resources goals. 



-264- 



CRS-140 

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL I^ESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 

citizen volunteers and instituting public education campaigns. In 1990, 
109,000 volunteers nation-wide cleared 5,850 kilometers of coastline and 
collected more than 1,320 tons of trash.'^ New York City has been re- 
examining the management of its enormous solid waste stream in an effort to 
minimize contributions to the sea via storm sewers, spills from trash barges 
and other sources. The United States is working toward better control of 
storm sewers and combined sewer overflow and expects these controls to 
reduce the release of floatables from these sources. 

Open Ocean Since the early 1970s, major progress has been made by the United States in 

Pollution controlling pollution in the open ocean. Ocean waters within the U.S. EEZ 

are relatively unpolluted compared to near-shore coastal waters. This is in 
part because pollutants disperse in the open ocean, but also because the 
United States has significantly reduced most direct ocean releases of 
pollutants. Material being disposed of in open ocean areas along the U.S. 
outer continental shelf now consists primarily of oil and gas drill rig 
discharges (mainly from drill cuttings with some drilling mud), sediments 
from dredging operations and ship discharges. Strict regulations limit 
materials that can legally be disposed of in the open ocean. Federal agencies 
have taken steps to discourage the use of some kinds of fishing gear and other 
shipboard equipment that increase the amount of trash in marine waters. 

Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge. Dumping of sewage sludge increased 
from 4.8 million tons in 1973 to 8.7 milhon tons in 1989. Until 1986, sludge 
from nine New York and New Jersey sewage authorities was dumped at a site 
19 kilometers offshore. In 1986, this dumping was moved to another site 170 
kilometers offshore. Six of these nine sludge dumpers terminated their 
operation in March 1991. Two more will cease dumping in December 1991, 
and the last remaining offender is scheduled to cease dumping in June 1992. 
In order to end their ocean dumping, these sewerage authorities either have 
switched or will soon switch to beneficial re-use (recycling) of sludge or more 
costly sludge disposal methods, such as land disposal at permitted facilities or 
incineration, as a result of the Ocean Diunping Ban Act of 1988. 

Cessation of industrial Ocean Dumping. Between 1973 and 1987, the 
amount of U.S. industrial waste dumped in the ocean annually declined 
steadily from about six million tons to well under one million tons. Permitted 
ocean dumping of industrial wastes ceased in September 1988. Pollution 
traces from old sites can still be found in some areas, but the current impacts 
are considered minor or negligible. There are also prohibitions on disposal of 
high-level radioactive wiiste in ocean waters. 



-265- 



CRS-141 

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMEr^n' AND KEY ENVH^ONMENfTAL ISSUES 



Chesapeake Bay Oyster Harvest Has Dropped Dramatically 



Total 
Maryland 
E3 Virginia 




1981 



1982 



1983 



1984 



1985 



1986 



1987 



1988 



Source: U.S EPA, Office of Water, National Wafer Quality Inventory: 1988 Report to Congress, 
EPA 440-4-90-003, April 1990, p.65. 



Exhibit 6d.5 



Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Increasing Mid-Bay 

30.000-1 



25,000-- 



w 20,000 



■C 15,000-- 
a 

X 



10,000-- 



5,000 




1978 1984 1985 1986 1987 1989 

Source: U.S. EPA, The Chesapeake Bay ... A Progress Report, August 1 991 , p.5. 



Exhibit 6<L6 



-266- 



CRS-142 

CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 



Endnotes: 



The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) defines the 
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as that region that extends 200 nautical miles 
seaward from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured. The United 
States is responsible for wisely developing, managing and protecting the EEZ's 
environment and its living and non-living marine resources contained within. 
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries of the United States, 1990. Current 
Fishery Statistics, no. 9000 (Silver Spring, MD.: May 1991), 11pp. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
National Ocean Service, Strategic Assessments Branch, Estuaries of the United 
States: Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base (Rockville, MD: October 1990), 
79pp. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
National Ocean Service, Ocean Assessments Division (Rockville, MD), in 
cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Wetlands Inventory, 
Fish and Wildlife Service, (Washington, D.C.), and the National Wetlands Research 
Center (Sidell, LA), Coastal Wetlands of the United States: An Accounting of a 
Valuable National Resource (February 1991), 59pp. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts, 1960-2010 (April 1990), 
41pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Federal Offshore 
Statistics: 1989: Leasing, Exploration and Revenues, OCS Report MMS 90-0072: 
1990: 104pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, The Offshore 
Environmental Studies Program (1973 - 1989): A Summary of Minerals 
Management Service Research Conducted on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, OCS 
Report MMS 90-0095: 1990: 104pp. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
National Ocean Service, Strategic Assessments Branch, Estuaries of the United 
States: Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base (Rockville, MD: October 1990), 
79pp. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
National Ocean Service, Ocean Assessments Division (Rockville, MD), in 
cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Wetlands Inventory, 
Fish and Wildlife Service, (Washington, D.C.), and the National Wetlands Researdi 
Center (Sidell, LA), Coastal Wetlands of the United States: An Accounting of a 
Valuable National Resource (February 1991), 59pp. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
National Ocean Service, Strategic Assessments Branch, The 1990 National Shellfish 
Register of Classed Estuarine Waters (Rockville, MD: November 1991), 100pp. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries of the United States, 1990. Current 
Fishery Statistics, no. 9000 (Silver Spring, MD.: May 1991), 11pp. 

Hawaii Visitors Bureau, Research Department, Honolulu, Hawaii. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Territorial and International Affairs 
(Washington, D.C.) 

-267- 



CRS-143 

CHAPTER 6. NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 

8. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States, 1990. Current 
Fishery Statistics, no. 9000 (Silver Spring, MD: May 1991), 11pp. 

9. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Needs Assessment of the National Marine 
Fisheries Service (January 1990), 315pp. 

10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Aqua-6, 
Aquaculture— Situation and Outlook Report, March 1991. 

11. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States, 1990. Current Fishery 
Statistics, no. 9000 (Silver Spring, MD: May 1991), 11pp. 

12. Marine Mammal Commission, Annual Report of the Marine 

Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1990, A Report to Congress (January 1991), 
270pp. 

13. Ibid. 

14. National Academy of Science, National Research Council, Decline of the Sea Turtles. Causes 
and Prevention (National Academy Press: 1990), 259pp. 

15. The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Title III, authorizes 
the designation of certain areas of the marine environment which possess 
conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational or aesthetic 
qualities which should be conserved and managed as a marine sanctuary. It also 
authorizes study and designation of others. 

16. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 established the National "Estuarine 
Research Reserves program which designates an area that is a representative 
estuarine ecosystem that is suitable for long-term research and designation. The 
designation of the area will serve to enhance public awareness and understanding 
of estuarine factors. Additional areas may be designated in the future. 

17. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
National Ocean Service, Marine and Estuarine Management Division, National 
Estuarine Research Reserve System: Site Catalog (Washington, D.C.: 1990), 37pp. 

18. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Park System Map 
and Guide (1990). 

19. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
National Marine Fisheries Service, Strategic Plan of the National Marine Fisheries 
Service: Goals and Objectives (June 10, 1991), 21pp. 

20. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, The Offshore 
Environmental Studies Program (1973 • 1989): A Summary of Minerals 
Management Service Research Conducted on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, OCS 
Report MMS 90-0095 (1990), 104pp. 

21. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Federal Offshore 
Statistics: 1989: Leasing, Exploration and Revenues, OCS Report MMS 90-0072 
(1990), 104pp. 

22. M.M. Main, D.R.G. Farrow and F.D. Arnold, Publicly Owned Treatment Works in 
Coastal Areas of the U.SA. (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, 
Strategic Assessment Branch, Oceans Assessments Division: 1987), 20pp + 
Appendices. 

23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Municipal Pollution Control, 1988 
Needs Survey Report to Congress, EPA 430/09-89-001 (February 1989), p. 0-9. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, 
Environmental Progress and Challenges (August 1988), p. 49. 



-268- 



CRS-144 

CHAPTEI7 6: NATURAL RESOURCES ENDOWMENT AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 

24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, A Plan for Research and Monitoring of 
Atmospheric Nitrogen and Toxic Pollutants in Coastal Waters: A Report to 
Congress, EPA/600/9-89/061 (June 1, 1989). 

Peter M. Groffman and N.A. Jaworski, Upper Potomac River Basin Case Study, 
New Perspectives in the Chesapeak System, A Research and Management 
Partnership: Proceedings of a Conference, December 4-6, 1990, CRC Publication 

no. 137 (Baltimore, MD: Chesapeake Research Consortium: 1990). 

■~- 

25. Center for Marine Conservation, Cleaning North America's Beaches: Results of the 
1990 National Beach Cleanup (Washington, D.C.: May 1991), 291pp. 

Additional References: — - 

Breiwick, J.M., and H.W. Braham. "The Status of Endangered Whales." Marine Fisheries Review 
vol. 46, no.4 (1984): pp. 1-64. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality - 21st Annual Report. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Service: 1990. 388pp. 

Groffman, P.M., and N.A. Jaworski. "Upper Potomac River Basin Case Study." New Perspectives 
in the Chesapeake System, A Research and Management Partnership: Proceedings of a Conference. 
December 4-6, 1990. CRC Publication no. 137. Chesapeake Research Consortium, 1990. 

Hall, M.H., and S.D. Boyer. "Incidental Mortality of Dolphins in the Tuna Purse-Seine Fishery in 
the Eastern Pacific Ocean During 1988." Report of the International Whaling Commission, no. 40: 
1990: pp. 461-462. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterbome Commerce of the United States. Calendar Year 1988. 
Part 5, National Summaries. WRSC-WCUS-88-5. Water Resources Support Center. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office: 1990. 107pp. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National 
Ocean Service. Coastal Environmental Quality in the United States, 1990. Chemical 
Contamination in Sediment and Tissues. Rockville, MD: Strategic Assessment Branch, Oceans 
Assessments Division: October 1990. 34pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Administration of the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act of 1972 • Annual Report. January 1. 1989 to December 31, 1989. 
Washington, D.C.: Fish and Wildlife Service: 1990: 54pp. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Plan for Research and Monitoring of Atmospheric 
Nitrogen and Toxic Pollutants in Coastal Waters: A Report to Congress. June 1, 1989. 

U.S. Environmental FVotection Agency. Office of Water. Progress in the National Estuary 
Program. Report to Congress. (WH-556F) (EPA 503/9-90-005). February 1990. 44pp. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress on the Implementation of Section 403C 
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency: June 1990. 



-269- 



CRS-145 



APPENDIX C. SELECTED OCEANS AND 
COASTAL RESOURCES STATUTES* 



Marine and Coastal Resources 

• Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (1965) 

Authorizes programs to conserve, develop and enhance federal 
anadromous fisheries resources. 

• Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act (1984) 

Authorizes programs for the conservation and management of Atlantic 
striped bass. 

• Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

Prohibits development of barrier islands within the Coastal Barrier 
Resource System to conserve fish, wildlife and other natural resources 
in those areas. 

• The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 

Amends the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1986, which established 
the Coastal Barrier Resources System consisting of undeveloped 
coastal barriers and other areas located on the coasts of the United 
States. 

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

Makes federal funds available to encourage states to develop 
comprehensive management programs in an effort to increase the 
effective management, beneficial use, protection and development of 
the coastal zone. 

• Driftnet Jmpcict Monitoring, Assessment and Control Act of 

1987 

Directs the government to assess and minimize the adverse effects of 
driftnets in the North Pacific ocean on marine resources. 

• Fish and Wildlife Act (1956) 

Establishes a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy to 
develop measures for maximum sustainable yield to insure stability of 
domestic fisheries. 

Provides for agency consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service 
(FWS) whenever the "waters of any stream or other body of water are 
to be impounded, directed or otherwise controlled". 



'Source: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. 
United States of America National Report, pp.407-409. 



:^MSU^ ^ 



CRS-146 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act CNon-game Act") 

Requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to monitor and assess non-game 
migratory birds and to identify those likely to be candidates for listing 
as endangered species. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934) 

Authorizes FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service to assist 
federal, state and other agencies in developing, protecting, rearing and 
-stocking-fish and wildHfeon federal lands. 

Fisherman's Protective Act CPelly Amendment") of 1967 

Ensures that foreign fishing activities are in accordance with 
international fishery conservation program, and activities do not affect 
endangered/threatened species. 

Fur Seal Act Amendments of 1 983 

Prohibits taking of fur seals, with exception of subsistence harvest by 
Alaska Natives. 

Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 

Prohibits commerce of fish and wildlife in violation of federal, state 
and international laws. 

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1976) 

Conserves and manages fishery resources within the U.S. Ebcclusive 
Economic Zone (EEZ) for maximum sustainable yield. 
Creates eight regional fishery management councils to prepare fishery 
management plans for their respective regions. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, and Amendments of 
1988 

Provides for long-term management, research, conservation and 
recovery programs for marine mammals. 

Establishes a moratorium on the taking and importing of marine 
mammals and marine mammal products. 

Shore Protection Act of 1988 

Requires vessels to protect coastal areas from disposal of solid waste. 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (1953) and Amendments of 
1978 and 1985 

Regulates offshore oil, gas and mineral leasing. 

Requires compliance with natural resource protection programs from 

damages associated with oil, gas £ind mineral development activities. 

Saltonstall-Eennedy Act (1939) 

Establishes fisheries research and development fund. 



CRS-147 

South Pacific Tuna Act of 1 988 

Regulates tuna harvest by U.S. flag vessels within the Exclusive 
Economic Zones of Pacific Island Parties. 

Marine Pollution Control 

• National Ocean Pollution Planning Act, 1978 

Establishes a comprehensive five-year plan for federal ocean pollution 
-^•esearch-and development and monitoring programs, and coordinates 
research of the Great Lakes and estuaries of national importance. 
Develops an information base for use in conservation, equitable 
distribution and development of ocean and coastal resources. 

The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (1980) 

Implements international agreement "Convention for the Prevention 
of Pollution by Ships" (MARPOL Annexes I-V). 
Prevents pollution from ships by the discharge of harmful substances 
or effluent. 

Oil Pollution Act of 1 990 

Increases and extends civil and criminal liability limits for the cleanup 
of oil spilled from vessels. 

Requires better pleinning and preparedness and measures to increase 
navigation safety, new standards for vessel construction, crew licensing 
and manning of vessels. 

• Marine Pollution and Research and Control Act, 1989 

Implements the provisions of MARPOL Annex V. 

Prohibits the disposal of plastics at sea by any vessel within the U.S. 

EEZ. 

Ocean Dumping Ban Act (ODBA) of 1 988 

Prohibits issuance of new permits for dumping of sewage sludge or 
industrial wastes into ocean waters; existing sewage sludge or 
industrial waste dumping (existing permittees) under compliance 
schedules/enforcement agreements to phase out dumping activities. 
Statutory deadline December 31, 1991. 

• Columbia River Basin Fishery Development Program CThe 
Mitchell Act') (1938) 

Establishes cultural stations and funds programs to facilitate 
conservation of Columbia River fishery resources. 

• Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (Title I, U, 
andm) 

Prohibits ocean dumping of wastes generated on land. 

Authorizes designation of marine sanctuaries. (Eight National Marine 

Sanctuaries currently are designated; seven more are proposed). 



SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES 



3 9088 00758 2562